Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Supply

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss electricity supply.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board at which we discuss issues of common interest.

Mr. McKay: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman the medium and long-term method of producing energy, bearing in mind that when gas runs out an additional 100 million tonnes of coal per year will be needed to meet our current gas needs? As the Secretary of State says that only 100 million tonnes will be produced, what will happen to the electricity industry? Where will it obtain its fuel and what type of supply is intended?

Mr. Walker: In any discussions about the long-term demands of the CEGB the chairman and I agree that coal has an important role to play and that coal produced efficiently at low cost will be an important factor.

Mr. Mason: Did the chairman assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no power cuts throughout the winter if the strike maintains its present momentum? What did he reveal to the Secretary of State about the increase of coal imports, new contracts which have been made and countries which are now supplying the CEGB?

Mr. Walker: The CEGB is receiving virtually no supplies from imports. Yes. I have had an assurance from the chairman that there will be no fuel cuts this winter if present coal supplies continue.

Mr. Orme: Has the Secretary of State seen the two recent independent reports on coal stocks? If those reports are correct, when will coal have to be removed from the pitheads to certain power stations, and how will the Government seek to do that?

Mr. Walker: Coal is being moved from pitheads to power stations at present because many pitheads are working. I shall deal with present stocks later but, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman a preview, he will be pleased to know that present coal stocks are about exactly the same as they were on 26 August.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has received from the National Coal Board as to the value of the equipment in the mines damaged beyond repair due to the coal dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current industrial dispute in the coal industry.

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the mining strike.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coalmining dispute.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to discuss the pit closure programme with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: With permission, I shall answer questions Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 15.
Since I answered questions in the House on 29 October there has been a substantial improvement in the number of miners returning to work. The number of men not on strike in the industry as a whole is now 99,000, approximately 44 per cent. of those employed in the industry.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Wrong question.

Mr. Walker: There are substantial stocks of coal at power stations. I am pleased to inform the House that stocks of coal at power stations are similar to what they were on 26 August.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Answer question No. 2.

Mr. Walker: The Government regret that considerable damage continues to be done—

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State is just coming to the question on the mines damaged beyond repair.

Mr. Walker: The Government regret that considerable damage continues to be done to the industry by the continuation of the strike. The compromise proposal put forward by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the detailed agreement reached with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers provide proposals which should be acceptable to all those employed in the industry.
The Government deplore the continuing violence which is taking place and the injuries which have been sustained by a number of those miners who have returned to work. The Government regret that members of the NUM continue to be deprived of the opportunity to express their views through a national ballot.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the linkage of questions proposed by the Secretary of State still stand?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Chair to link questions. That is done by the Secretary of State. With this question which deals with mines damaged beyond repair, are linked other questions dealing with the coal strike generally.

Mr. Madel: As it is vital to increase the number of jobs in our manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the NCB will make every effort to place orders with British firms to replace damaged equipment when the dispute ends?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Most of the mining machinery firms which have supplied the NCB in the past are British and I am sorry that they are suffering now. There is no doubt that when the dispute is over there will be a continuation of the major investment programme, and it will be the objective of the NCB and certainly of the Government that British firms benefit primarily from that programme.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Are not the figures which my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important to state at this point that the questions now being asked have nothing to do with the original question.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that it is not for me to link questions. That has already been done. However, I will take into account the fact that there are other questions on the Order Paper on this subject.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Are not the figures given by my right hon. Friend about the abandonment of the strike enormously encouraging? He has made immense and successful efforts to publicise the terms that lie on the table, but will he also use this psychological moment to emphasise that the terms available for those returning to work are better than any that would be available in a comparable industry?

Mr. Walker: There is a series of guarantees on pay, lack of compulsory redundancies and the future investment programme which make the offer unique, not only compared with other industries, but since nationalisation. That is why I deeply regret that the NUM continues to refuse to allow its members to be balloted. I have no doubt what the result would be if they were balloted.

Mrs. Clwyd: First, I must object to the linking of questions proposed by the Secretary of State. Some of them are on specific matters and should not have been linked with question No. 2.
Given that 75 million to 80 million tonnes of coal will have been lost by the end of the current financial year and that the NCB's proposal in "Plan for coal" was to cut 4 million tonnes from the overall capacity, what is the point of going ahead with pit closures, and where will the Government get the coal?

Mr. Walker: Even after the length of this dispute, we still have the most massive coal mountain. About 37 million tonnes of stocks still remain. Therefore, the importance of future production is that it should be at a cost that enables it to compete with new markets and to expand the markets for coal instead of having them contract.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the fact that one miner has been beaten up and badly hurt, that the house of another has been burnt down and that nine have been charged with serious criminal assault a direct effect of the inflammatory and provocative rabble-rousing of Mr. Scargill?

Mr. Walker: The TUC said some months ago how much it deplored the methods of picketing that were

bringing violence to mining communities. The horrific cases that we have seen over the past few days illustrate that it is time that the NUM complied with either the TUC guidelines on picketing or with its own union guidelines on picketing and prevented this type of mob activity and violence from taking place.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State failed to answer my question No. 15, which he said that he was linking with question No. 2. Has he any plans to meet the chairman of the NCB to discuss the pit closure programme? If so, will he inform the chairman that the situation in some mining communities, and certainly in my community, is like living on a powder keg? Does he realise that matters have got so serious that we have miner fighting miner, with problems spilling over into school playgrounds? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's policy and the pit closure programme are leading to the development of a Northern Ireland situation in our communities? Bearing that in mind, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is his duty, as Secretary of State, to instruct the chairman of the NCB to reopen negotiations for an honourable settlement?

Mr. Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about what is happening in his community, but he knows better than anyone that if at the beginning of the dispute the NUM had complied with normal procedures and held a ballot and members had voted to strike not one miner would have crossed a picket line. No picketing would have been required. The NUM executive can hold a ballot at any time that it wishes. Its decision to use the mob picket rather than the ballot box caused the trouble.

Mr. Benn: Does the Secretary of State recall that in June the Prime Minister said that 50,000 miners were at work, in July 60,000 and on 25 October 70,000? Is he aware that the Coal Board claims that only 62,000 are back at work? Have not the Government been feeding fraudulent figures to wage psychological warfare against the NUM, and are they not wholly unsuccessful?

Mr. Walker: That illustrates the right hon. Gentleman's failure even to understand what the figures are about. The figures that he mentions were used in relation to NUM membership. The figure that I gave this afternoon concerns those employed in the industry as a whole, including NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Managers. A total of 99,000 are at work.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), is not the damage to equipment and the potential damage to coal faces a greater threat to future job opportunities in the mining industry than any of the NCB's proposals?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Coal faces have been damaged and destroyed in economic pits which had a good future for those working in them. Machinery has been damaged and markets lost. Without a dispute this year 1,000 firms would have converted to coal. Now, alas, many firms which have converted are considering converting back to other fuels.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the damage caused, the bitterness bred and the hardship generated, will the Secretary of State reconsider his policy of non-intervention, which has gone on for far too long? If he will not take an initiative, will he at least ensure that the


chairman of the NCB complies thoroughly with the NACODS agreement about which he boasts? Will he bear in mind that I have received a letter from the chairman of the NCB which suggests that the pledge of no redundancies will last only to the end of March 1985?

Mr. Walker: The answer about talks is best illustrated by the actions of the hon. Gentleman's own union, which talked in detail and came to an agreement. That agreement will be complied with by both sides. Mr. MacGregor has rightly said that if the strike continues in its present form and the coal faces of economic pits with a good future are destroyed, a considerable threat to the industry as a whole will be created.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Since the dispute is continuing and the damage now amounts to millions of pounds, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the investment earmarked for Nottinghamshire will not be diverted elsewhere?

Mr. Walker: Important developments and investments are to be made in Nottinghamshire and they will certainly be made. The Nottinghamshire miners have done a great deal to safeguard the future of the industry in markets, production and reputation.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister answer the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)? Last week there was some doubt about whether the Coal Board would make people compulsorily redundant. Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to any objective opinion, the only way that the NCB has moved in the last nine months has been on the question of compulsory redundancy? Is that pledge guaranteed to last only until the end of the current financial year, or does it run into the year 1985–86 and beyond?

Mr. Walker: The National Coal Board's plans for improving productivity and getting rid of the most uneconomic pits mean that we can guarantee miners that none of them will face compulsory redundancy. The only threat of compulsory redundancies for miners is posed by the destruction of good economic pits by the strike.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend answer a question which was put to me today? As valuable machinery is being destroyed, as men are being brutally intimidated, as the courts are being flouted and as money is being taken around the country in bags, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of prosecutions being brought against those who have masterminded the strike and the NUM executive?

Mr. Walker: Powers of prosecution are matters for police authorities. The decisions are not for politicians to take. Immense damage has been done by the criminal acts that have taken place and the unbelievable violence that has been used to try to prevent miners returning to work.

Mr. Foot: Given the great importance of the subject, does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no difference between what he says about compulsory redundancies and that which Mr. MacGregor has to say on the subject? Are we still to believe what Mr. MacGregor said on 6 March?

Mr. Walker: The position is clear. On all the plans for the future of the industry, there will be no compulsory redundancies. The only factor that could interfere with the plans is irresponsible strike action which destroys good, economic pits.

Mr. Rost: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that after the rally in Derby, which was organised by Mr. Arthur Scargill and supported by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), a record number of Derbyshire miners have today voted with their feet and returned to work?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to inform the House that on 1 November there were slightly more than 1,180 miners working in north Derby and now there are 4,500 working in that area. When the Leader of the Opposition addresses the miners in Stoke on Friday, I hope that he will realise that he is speaking for the 20 per cent. of miners who are on strike and not the 80 per cent. of miners in that area who are at work.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the new regional aid policy to be announced this week will certainly worsen unemployment in coal mining areas, will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the provision of far more finance and alternative jobs in coal industry areas than the Government have provided so far?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the new company has been created. I am pleased to say that it has already received 150 inquiries about new businesses. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that original financing has been provided to get the company at work. I assure him also that the position will be reviewed and that more money will be provided as is necessary to help this important work.

Mr. Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more miners would return to work if they did not feel threatened by the violence that is organised and inspired by their union? Given the appalling acts of premeditated violence to which he has referred which took place last week, will he assure the House that adequate protection will be given to those wishing to return to work?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Every protection possible will be given, but it is not possible to provide the type of protection that will stop a mob breaking into someone's house in the early hours of the morning and beating him up. That is the type of intimidation that has been introduced and we cannot give protection to every house. The Labour party recognises that there would have been no intimidation and no crossing of picket lines if there had been a ballot. Intimidation has been the only method of keeping miners out of work.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister set the record straight? Is he aware that I am fed up with hearing about ballots? The strike started—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strike started because the Coal Board and the Government failed to honour the procedures laid down on pit closures? Will he now get shot of the amateurs on the Coal Board and the Government side and bring in professionals who will seriously negotiate with the NUM to achieve a settlement of the strike?

Mr. Walker: Serious negotiations have taken place about various aspects, including a compromise solution suggested by ACAS and a detailed agreement accepted by NACODS. The one person who has always refused serious negotiation is Mr. Scargill.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In any correspondence that my right hon. Friend has with the bishops, will he suggest to


them that there is a role for the Church in this matter, and that is to urge reconciliation between those who have been on strike and those who are at work? That is the bishops' task. It is not their task to intervene in the detailed conduct of the negotiations.

Mr. Walker: I very much share my hon. Friend's view that the churches have a considerable role to play in endeavouring to return a sense of unity as quickly as possible to the mining communities.

Mr. Orme: Despite all the special offers and inducements, it is obvious that the mining strike is no nearer a solution. Therefore, will the Secretary of State take the initiative in getting talks resumed? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that proposals are still on the table at ACAS and that the NUM is prepared to negotiate on them. Will the Secretary of State now play his part by bringing the NCB back to the negotiating table?

Mr. Walker: The position of the talks is best described by the president of the NUM, who categorically says that he has not moved an inch since 6 March. The whole nation knows that that is the position, in spite of all the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). There could be no better pressure to reach a sensible agreement than for the Labour party and the TUC to tell the NUM that until it abides by proper principles of picketing, instead of violence, they will have nothing to do with it.

Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it after questions.

Domestic Gas Supplies

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Energy by how much he expects demand for gas in the domestic sector to increase by the year 2000.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The British Gas Corporation estimates that domestic gas demand will rise from 9·1 billion therms in 1983–84 to about 10·8 billion therms in the year 2000. However, such estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.

Mr. Wallace: How does that increase in demand of 12 or 13 per cent. compare with the stated belief of the Secretary of State that he wishes energy conservation to contribute to a reduction of 20 per cent.? Will that be done by substituting solid fuels or electricity for gas—there is no sign of the other nationalised bodies taking that lying down—or is it the case that the British Gas Corporation and the Energy Efficiency Office have not got their act together?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes this interest in conservation. I hope he is reassured by the fact that in those estimates the British Gas Corporation has taken account of conservation measures which it believes can be achieved. The Government and the British Gas Corporation are wholly at one in their drive for further conservation, which is already proving extremely successful.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the strong minority demand for gas in rural areas and villages will still be unsatisfied by the year 2000? Is he

aware that the gas corporation's charges for connection are wholly unrealistic and well beyond the means of most people who would like to be connected to the system?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that that matter is raised with me from time to time. The British Gas Corporation is bound by the statutory position decided by the House. I think that knowledge of the position in the year 2000 will be surrounded by even more uncertainty than the figures I cited earlier.

Mr. Rowlands: Do the Government accept the recent forecasts for supply and demand made by the British Gas Corporation, which clearly showed that the corporation needs Sleipner gas? Where do the Government stand with regard to Sleipner?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Negotiations on Sleipner gas are still proceeding, and we shall have to wait to see how they get on.

British National Oil Corporation

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the financial situation of the British National Oil Corporation.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I refer the hon. Member to the minute which my Department laid before the House on 23 October.

Mr. Rowlands: Is it not sad that the Government have managed to turn what was once, in 1981–82, an extremely profitable and vibrant British National Oil Corporation into a £45 million lame duck? Does the £45 million, which has been cited recently as the cost of covering BNOC's losses, cover the losses in the past few days, or will we have a further Supplementary Estimate? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least confirm what he said on 22 October, that he still sees BNOC as having a vital role in the supply of oil?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman shows so little understanding of the position. The losses would have been the same whether or not Britoil had been split from BNOC. Had they remained together, the loss would have been masked by an upstream profit. Where BNOC has the responsibility for purchasing participation oil supplies, it is better that the nation should know the cost.

Sizewell Inquiry

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the costs appertaining to the Sizewell B public inquiry will be or are being met by public funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Costs up to 31 October 1984 falling to my Department were some £396,000. Other costs incurred to the same date in running the inquiry and recoverable from the Central Electricity Generating Board, by agreement with the board, total approximately £1,567,000.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the Secretary of State's anxiety, expressed last week, about the plight of the unemployed, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider passing on so much of that charge to the consumer who, in areas of high unemployment, can ill


afford fuel at the present prices? For example, Merseyside has seen fuel disconnections increased by 10 per cent. during the past 12 months.

Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend has the statutory power to determine who shall meet the costs of inquiries for consents under the Electricity Acts. It is a long accepted practice that the electricity board making the application meets such costs.

Mr. Chapman: Given the length and cost of the Sizewell B inquiry, may I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that any future inquiry relating to another nuclear power station will concentrate on the specific merits of the site and the need for the additional power station? The Sizewell B inquiry has been concerned also with the general merits of nuclear power as an alternative form of energy, and that should not be repeated.

Mr. Goodlad: I note what my hon. Friend says. Decisions on applications for future planning consents will be taken in the light of the circumstances from time to time prevailing.

Mr. Eadie: Has the Minister any new information as to when the inquiry is likely to end?

Mr. Goodlad: I regret that I have no firm information on that point.

Fuel Prices

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the gas and electricity boards over increases in fuel prices.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss gas prices.

Mr. Peter Walker: Prices are a matter for the industries within the framework of their agreed external financing limits and financial targets.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that the increases which are to take place this year are a form of fuel tax and hidden taxation? If it is a matter for the fuel and power industries, why has the Cabinet decided on the increases? Is this not another case where the Secretary of State disagrees strongly with Government policy, but lost out in the Cabinet to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Walker: In fact, the Government have not agreed any specific price increases. They will be a matter for the industries. All that the Government know is that, unlike during the period of the previous Labour Government, the increases will be below the rate of inflation.

Mr. Powell: Will the Secretary of State be honest with the House and admit that the primary object of the exercise is to increase prices yet again to consumers and industrialists?

Mr. Walker: The enormous increases that took place about every six weeks under the previous Labour Government now, on average, take place every two years under a Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman should rejoice at the fact that there has been such an improvement during this Government's lifetime.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government keep changing the external financing limits, as they have for gas, electricity and

water, although it may not be called a tax, if the Government keep making the industries raise money which they say they do not need it will amount to the same thing—a tax upon the consumer?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why I am pleased that on this occasion I reached agreement with the gas and electricity boards as to what should be done.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of miners that have returned to work since the current dispute in the mining industry began.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): In the eight months from the beginning of the strike to 1 November around 6,000 former strikers returned to work. In the 17 working days since then, over 14,000 more have gone back.
There have been considerable increases in the number of men at work in Scotland, the north-east, south Yorkshire, north Derbyshire, Lancashire and north Wales.

Mr. Morris: If my hon. Friend will give the House a categorical assurance that the 20,000-plus men exist, and that they are being paid, that would be some evidence. How does the answer square with Mr. Scargill's assertion at the weekend that there were 144,000 men on strike—4,000 more than a month ago, according to his figures?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, the figures that I have given are correct, and they are the figures for those being paid. The NCB's external auditors, Thomson McLintock and Company, have been to north Derbyshire and tested and confirmed the reliability of the board's systems for reporting the number of men returning to work. I, too, heard Mr. Arthur Scargill yesterday mention the figure of 144,275. The actual figure is 123,000. That shows the level of distortion that Mr. Scargill uses.

Mr. Welsh: It would appear that the auditors agree only the north Derbyshire figures. According to The Observer yesterday, the auditors could not agree any other figures which the NCB put forward. Does the Minister agree with the report in The Observer?

Mr. Hunt: No. The board's external auditors were asked to go into the north Derbyshire area only. They visited all collieries and other units there and verified the reporting systems. Similar reporting systems operate in all the 12 NCB areas.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend think that it is because the return to work figures are so good and encouraging that Mr. Scargill keeps going on secret trips to Paris, or is it that Mr. Scargill is beginning to get nervous about his own hit-men, as he has now grudgingly and slowly begun to half-condemn violence?

Mr. Hunt: I cannot be held answerable to this House for the travel activities of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. Today over 66,000 members of the NUM are no longer on strike. Today 99,000 people are at work in the coal industry.

Mr. Rowlands: Do the Minister's figures include the Merthyr Vale pit at Aberfan, where two miners went to work last week and this morning? [Interruption.] They went in at 7 o'clock and left at quarter to 11. Is that what


constitutes two working miners? Instead of quoting figures, will the Secretary of State come down and see for himself what the argument is about? He has never been anywhere near the coalfields.

Mr. Hunt: The House must understand that to be among the first to return to work at a pit demands great courage. [Interruption.] It demands the sort of courage that was shown by the first six miners to enter the Bilston Glen colliery on 5 June. I am happy to report that nearly 900 men are at work there today.

Coal Board Enterprise Company

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much of the initial finance of the Coal Board's enterprise company has so far been allocated.

Mr. David Hunt: The board of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. held its first meeting on 30 October. The company has received over 150 inquiries so far, and these will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that when the first £5 million made available to the enterprise company has been used, more money will be made available if there are worthwhile projects?

Mr. Hunt: The Government attach great importance to the work of this very important enterprise company. I assure my hon. Friend that the resources available to the new company will be kept under very careful review.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concede that there must be a relationship between giving finance where pit closures have taken place and are likely to take place and general regional policy? What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry about keeping mining areas, such as Fife, at assisted area status?

Mr. Hunt: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All I can say is that it is vital that that company succeeds. I hope that in doing so it will have the support of the whole House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Minister's comments are welcome to the House, but will he explain why the Government and the NCB took so long to establish that organisation, in view of the undoubted success of British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd., particularly when they were asked to do so shortly after the beginning of the dispute by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?

Mr. Hunt: Inevitably it takes time for a new company of that nature to be brought up to strength and for the right executive director to be found. However, every possible effort is being made to bring the company into activity as quickly as possible to meet the challenge that is necessary in these crucial areas.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is — that many businesses depend upon a prosperous coal industry, which is in trouble at the moment in the strike areas? When the company comes into operation, will he try to arrange for the NCB to give support to industries or businesses which employ people and which, if they are not helped, will contribute towards a rise in the unemployment figures, as they will go bankrupt?

Mr. Hunt: I assure my hon. Friend that we are watching carefully and with great concern the condition and strength of certain companies in mining areas. Inevitably, one is forced to the conclusion that the sooner this unnecessary and damaging dispute is over, the better the health of those companies will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Visitors (Tours)

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the facilities for permitting hon. Members' parties to tour Parliament when they have to enter through St. Stephens entrance.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): St. Stephen's entrance is used for the entry of Members' parties when the line of Route through the House of Lords is closed; I am aware that under such circumstances space for visitors at the point of entry is restricted.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the beginning of this Session of Parliament over 2,000 people a day have been touring the House, going through inadequate security arrangements at both St. Stephen's entrance and the Norman Porch entrance, outside which there is no protection against the weather? At the very least, will my right hon. Friend ensure that manual security arrangements are made available to supplement the existing arrangements, to try to reduce the backlog of people and the delay which they experience in trying to tour the House?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in drawing attention to the growing numbers of people now visiting the House. The figures show that the total is about 50 per cent. above that for last year. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points about security.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is quite a good market in Prayer Cards among parties which come round this House and that as a result a member of the House of Commons staff has to be permanently on duty at the door to see that they are not pinched? Would it not be in the interests of all of us, in order to reduce the costs of running this place, if those cards could be left at the Vote Office, when it is open, from where hon. Members could go and take a card? It could have a double benefit.

Mr. Biffen: Ambitious as I am to extend my responsibilities, I would rather not answer that question, but I shall direct it to those who are possibly more competent.

Mr. Williams: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that a week ago the Norman Porch was closed, and one of the scanner channels at St. Stephen's entrance was closed? The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who asked the original question, will bear witness to that as we were both there. It was an absolute shambles outside St. Stephen's entrance a week ago. Security became impossible, which was no fault of either the police or the attendants, who were coping with a difficult situation. Could not the repair work have been carried out over the weekend?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman has security implications. I shall look into it.

Official Paid Envelopes

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been made to him regarding the use of official paid House of Commons envelopes for the purposes of a survey, regarding members of health authorities, conducted by an hon. Member of this House; and what inquiries he has made.

Mr. Biffen: I understand that this matter is at present being considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Mr. Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while any kind of witch hunt against the health authorities is bad enough, it is outrageous that such an operation, mounted from the Labour Front Bench, should be financed by the taxpayer through the unauthorised use of official paid House of Commons envelopes? When is the Sub-Committee likely to reach a conclusion on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a formidable case, but the matter is now before the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and I have no wish to anticipate the findings of the Committee. I shall see what I can do to expedite the submission of the report.

Mr. Shore: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is outrageous for the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) to make those remarks, knowing perfectly well that the matter has been referred to a Committee of the House which is considering all its aspects and will duly report? Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon his hon. Friend to contain himself?

Mr. Biffen: That message might well be applied to us all. I do not seek to anticipate the findings of the Sub-Committee, but I am sure that the whole House will be concerned that it should report as soon as possible.

Facilities (Members' Spouses)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to improve facilities in the Palace of Westminster for the spouses of hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: No, Sir.

Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the husbands and wives of hon. Members work very much as the partners of their spouses and that access to the House for them is very poor? Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, investigate ways of improving access to the Galleries and the building for husbands and wives of hon. Members? In particular, will he consider whether part of the Strangers Gallery should be set aside for them? If my right hon. Friend is in any doubt about the matter, will he please consult his wife?

Mr. Biffen: My wife has certainly never complained about that. Being aware of the important role played by spouses, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee undertook an investigation of what facilities could reasonably he provided, and those facilities are detailed in "Facilities for Members' Spouses", which was printed as recently as 1982. The authorities have received no complaints about problems of access to the Galleries.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see."] My shoulders are hunched and braced. If my hon. Friend is concerned about this matter, it is open to him to complain to me.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If there is a problem, could it not be overcome if the House kept more sensible hours? Hon. Members, like other working people, could then go home to their spouses.

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the Social Democratic party has something more to offer than a programme of nine to five.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of the unfortunately high divorce rate among hon. Members on both sides of the House, perhaps my right hon. Friend should consider carefully what other facilities should be made available to the wives of hon. Members. Does he agree that wives should have access to the side Galleries so that they can hear debates and see their husbands?

Mr. Biffen: Such matters were carefully considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee before it published its list of facilities available for Members' spouses. However, the Committee is open to receive further advice on the matter.

Televised Proceedings

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate an experiment in closed televising of the proceedings of the House using Westminster Hall as a viewing venue.

Mr. Biffen: I have no such proposals. Any such experiment would be a matter for decision by the House as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: I accept that, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, sooner or later, the introduction of television cameras into the House is inevitable? If so, will he use his good offices to ensure that the underused facilities provided by Westminster Hall are used for this type of experiment?

Mr. Biffen: It would be an affront to the House if I endorsed the doctrine of inevitability in the matter of television broadcasting. In sheer terms of practicality, I think that the House would be well advised to see what is determined in another place tomorrow.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would deplore the entry of the television camera into this Chamber? It would alter the character of this place and give it more of a showbiz atmosphere than it has now.

Mr. Biffen: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, which he advances in a most engaging fashion. This is a topic on which the House has made periodic judgments, and I have no doubt that it will wish to do so again in future.

Mr. Bidwell: If cameras are admitted to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they can record hon. Members coming out of the Division Lobbies? For example, cameras might have witnessed the events of last Thursday when the right hon. Gentleman was with the Tellers, presumably to see who was coming out of the No Lobby? Was his presence the result of pure curiosity, or was it a means of intimidation?

Mr. Biffen: I have never before had the compliment of intimidation levelled against me. The hon. Gentlman"s


question ranges wide of the original one. However, my loitering arose out of pure curiosity, so that I could anticipate by five minutes information that could be secured from the Clerks' Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Recruitment

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the latest annual rate of recruitment into the Civil Service.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): 30,844 people were recruited into the non-industrial grades of the Home Civil Service during the year ended 30 June 1984. This figure is provisional and may be subject to minor correction. Figures for industrial recruitment are not held centrally.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied with the number of scientists and engineers who are being recruited into the Civil Service? Is he also satisfied that there is every encouragement for civil servants to be seconded to industry for short periods of time and for industrialists to be seconded to the Civil Service? Does he agree that such an arrangement benefits everyone?

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree that such mutual interchange is beneficial to industrial and commercial firms and to the Civil Service and that it should be encouraged. The numbers now taking part in such exchanges are higher than a few years ago. I should like more applications from scientists and engineers, especially for the administrative Civil Service, as it ought to show a better balance between generalists and scientists, engineers and technologists. Similar proportions of applicants from each discipline are successful.

Mr. Winnick: Should it not be part of a democratic society that anyone who enters the Civil Service has the right to belong to a trade union? What pressures are now being applied at GCHQ to ensure that people who, on a point of principle, refuse to give up their trade union membership are forced out? Is the Minister aware that, in view of what is now going on at Cheltenham, we shall require a statement from him as soon as possible?

Mr. Hayhoe: The matter is primarily one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I imagine that the House realises that the recent judgment of the House of Lords—the highest court in the land—confirmed that given by the Court of Appeal to the effect that the revised terms and conditions of service introduced at GCHQ on 25 January are valid. With regard to employees at GCHQ who have decided not to opt for those conditions, every effort will now be made to find alternative posts for those who do not wish to remain at GCHQ under the revised conditions and terms of service.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my hon. Friend agree that too many people are being taken on and that it is important to reduce the numbers being admitted to the Civil Service? That is our priority.

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is less than fair to the great progress which has been made. Since 1979 the Civil Service has been reduced from 732,000 to under 620,000

at present. This is the smallest Civil Service that we have had since the war. The numbers now being recruited are well under half those which were recruited in 1978.

Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister bear in mind that a proper level of recruitment to the Civil Service depends on how the Government treat their own employees? Will he now give an assurance, or seek one from his right hon. and learned Friend, that those working at GCHQ who wish neither to be transferred nor to give up their trade union rights will not be dismissed until such time as the case is further heard at the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I said earlier, these are really matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the House of Lords judgment completed the domestic legal process. GCHQ will endeavour to find alternative posts within the Civil Service for those who do not wish to remain at GCHQ under the new conditions. There may be some for whom suitable positions cannot be found, and they will be offered premature retirement on redundancy terms. All this will take some time. Therefore, the question of dismissals does not arise at this stage.

Ethnic Monitoring

Mr Janner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has now completed the evaluation of the surveys of the ethnic origins of non-industrial civil servants in the north-west and county of Avon; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: No; but, as I said on 29 October, a decision on future surveys will be taken as soon as possible.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that "as soon as possible" may mean a very long time indeed? The code of the Commission for Racial Equality has been in force since 1 April, and the Government should be giving a lead rather than hanging behind. This matter should not be allowed to hang fire any longer.

Mr. Hayhoe: On this, as on earlier questions, the hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong. The code has been circulated to all Departments and their attention has been drawn to the fact that it is now in operation. The Government have made themselves an equal opportunities employer, and they make that clear in all staff advertisements. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have wanted to wait for the survey of applicants in the north-west and Avon to be published—at the end of the year—before arriving at premature judgments about the present state of affairs within the Civil Service. We are still waiting for clarification of the union position, which I regard as of some importance. On reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman may think that it is right that we should do so.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the overriding principle in recruitment and promotion is merit? If so, is he not now beginning to wonder about the efficacy of these surveys and what they are all about?

Mr. Hayhoe: I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that I gave him at our last Civil Service Question Time. I hope that his memory is not defective, but I repeat that the long-standing traditions and practice of the Civil


Service—that recruitment and promotion should be on the merits of the individual — should and will be maintained.

Cabinet Office (Efficiency Unit)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many individuals are currently working in the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Hayhoe: The efficiency unit works under the direction of Sir Robin Ibbs, the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency. It has eight staff, including two secretaries and a clerical officer.

Mr. Eggar: Is it not surprising that there are so few staff in this unit? Does it mean that the Government are now relying more on Departments internally to improve their own efficiency?

Mr. Hayhoe: The efficiency unit is deliberately small. Indeed, Lord Rayner recently said that Goliath should be matched with David, not with a smaller version of Goliath. I hope that my hon. Friend will say "Hear, hear" to that. Improvements on the scale we seek can come only when public servants at every level and in every Department are concerned to see that we get better value for money. The efficiency unit is a useful spur and incentive to achieve just that.

Mr. Soley: What guarantee can the Minister give to those people that the principle of national security will not be invoked to prevent them or any other group of cavil servants from joining trade unions?

Mr. Hayhoe: I readily repeat the guarantees that were given time and again from this Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when the affairs of GCHQ were rather more prominent in the public mind.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister reconsider that answer? Is he aware that, in view of the House of Lords decision on GCHQ, many civil servants employed in offices such as the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence worry that the pretext of national security may be used to ban trade union membership?

Mr. Hayhoe: No representations of such anxiety have arrived on my desk. It is difficult to see how that question can be linked to the work of the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office, but one is always amazed by the ingenuity of Opposition Members.

Mr. Cormack: What are the two most notable achievements of the unit?

Mr. Hayhoe: The unit has contributed to the saving of about £330 million a year on current expenditure in the Civil Service and to the saving of as many as 24,000 Civil Service jobs, which are considerable achievements for such a small unit.

Ministerial Statement

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of roder, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Energy, as he did during Question Time, continually to denounce the violence of pickets without at the same time denouncing the violence of other people who take part in pickets—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is a relatively new Member of the House, and I must tell her that it is not appropriate to try to continue, through points of order, matters which could be raised at Question Time. I called the hon. Lady to ask a question. What a Minister or anyone else says in the House is a matter for him, as long as it is in order. I cannot be responsible for his answers.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lang.]

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]

Miners' Families (Benefits)

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House than many right hon. and hon. Members have said that they wish to take part in this important debate. I remind the House that the debate will end at 7 o'clock and, as I have no power under the Standing Order recently agreed by the House to limit speeches to 10 minutes, I appeal to hon. Members to speak briefly.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that the Government postponed revealing its provocative decision to make a further £1 deduction in social security benefits for the families of striking miners until the last possible moment in order to stifle debate, noting too that this increase of £1 was neither automatic nor necessary but gratuitously vindictive when it has been introduced after eight months of a bitter strike, believing also that this increased disqualification of benefit will sharply inflame the bitterness of this dispute because it will be seen as the use of yet another weapon by the Government to starve the miners back to work through intensified financial hardship, calls upon the Government to withdraw this Order and to use negotiation, not the deprivation of families, wives and children as the means to resolve this dispute.
The Opposition have demanded this debate because we believe that the deductions of supplementary benefit penalise the wives and children of workers on strike and are fundamentally unjust. In particular, we believe that this extra deduction of £1, eight months into a bitter strike, is exceedingly provocative, and gratuitously provocative, because it was neither automatic nor necessary and will greatly inflame and worsen the bitterness which already exists in the coalfields and elsewhere.
A man who is not on strike but who is in receipt of supplementary benefit for other reasons, who is married and has a child of, say, 10 years old, receives as from today's uprating, £55.15 a week, plus rent. This supplementary benefit level is conventionally regarded as the state poverty line, as the minimum on which a family can get by. If any Tory Member of Parliament thinks that it is other than the barest minimum for survival he should have a word with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), who, in a famous televised episode, found himself unable to get by on that amount of money for even a week.
For a striking miner with a wife and a 10-year-old child, that minimum survival payment, on which a Tory Member of Parliament could not subsist, has today been cut back, by the order about which we are concerned, to precisely £16.05 a week, plus rent. That is a huge drop of more than two thirds below the state poverty line. I wonder how many Tory Members of Parliament, in all humanity, have any inkling of what it is like to be condemned to live on such a level.
The miner, as a worker on strike, does not receive supplementary benefit for his own needs. However, the deduction of an additional £16 a week means that the


miner, his children and his wife are systematically pushed down, not only to the point where they cannot get by but to the point of extreme personal hardship and growing destitution. The Opposition reject and condemn such a policy because it means victimising families and starving children in order to weaken trade unions and force their members back to work by sheer privation.
We also reject this policy because it breaches the fundamental principle of the supplementary benefit scheme, which is to provide sufficient for the basic necessities of life—food, fuel and housing. We reject it because it means treating the families of strikers worse than all other families on supplementary benefit, including the families of convicted criminals. We reject it as well because this reduction is made irrespective of the circumstances and the causes of the dispute, even where, as in this case, it was the employer who provoked the dispute in the first place by the provocative proposal to close Cortonwood only weeks after the miners there had been told that their jobs were safe for years.
By making this deduction the Tory Government are saying that workers are always in the wrong when they become involved in an industrial dispute and that they must be punished for exercising a right which separates democracy from dictatorship. That points to the central issue in contention here. Does today's Thatcherite Tory party—previous Tory parties have not had the attitude of this one—uphold the right to strike, or not? Their words proclaim that Tory Members do, and they are murmuring yes today, but they shamelessly resort to every economic and other device to make such a right unworkable in practice. That includes deliberate manipulation of the social security system to cut back the workers' entitlement so as to weaken their resolve. We have seen this done repeatedly during the dispute.
We have, for example, the continuous denial of family income supplement to miners' wives on the grotesque pretence that the families' incomes are not what they were in the last five weeks, which is the normal assessment period, but what they were 12 months ago before the overtime ban began. Now that that shameless pretence has been exposed and overturned by an industrial tribunal the Government are still preventing the wives of striking miners from getting their proper entitlement by stalling their appeal indefinitely.

Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is trying yet again to link the freedom to strike with the implication that it is society's duty to support strikers. Many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches maintain that although they support totally the right of individuals to withdraw their labour, which is an absolute freedom, that does not necessarily imply that taxpayers should be obliged to support them when they do it.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has hit on exactly the point to which I am about to come. By far the worst form of deliberate twisting of the social security system is this infamous £16 deduction. In addition to the denial of benefit to the striker himself, it is a double deduction which clearly is meant not in any way to be fair but to cripple the ability to strike at all.
The Tories say that the unions should pay the amount deducted. During questions last Thursday the Prime Minister said:

If the NUM carried out its obligations, those strikers would be receiving £16 next week."—[Official Report, 22 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 400.]
If the NUM had done exactly that, total NUM funds would have been exhausted within precisely four weeks. In other words, all the Tory platitudes about trade unions taking on their responsibility are a camouflage for bankrupting the unions, for making lengthy strikes unviable and for starving strikers into submission.
There is another reason why the Prime Minister's demand that the NUM pays this £16 is so wrong-headed and unjust. This deduction is being increased to £16 a week at the same time as the NUM, as every hon. Member knows, is no longer able to pay it because all its funds have either been sequestrated as a result of court action or, as a result of attempted sequestration, been otherwise immobilised.
I want to put a question to the Prime Minister or to her proxy, the Secretary of State for Social Services. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer it. If the only justification for this deduction is that the NUM should pay it instead, how can it possibly be right to make this deduction today when it is known that the NUM cannot pay? We want an answer to that question, and I shall give way happily to the Secretary of State if he will answer it now. The right hon. Gentleman declines to answer it. There is no satisfactory answer to the question, of course, and that is one central reason why we strongly oppose this contemptible order.
There is another reason. It is that the deduction did not have to be increased by £1 a week. To make it, unnecessarily, eight months into a bitter strike can only be seen as exceedingly provocative and vindictive.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister talked of the deduction being increased by "automatic" formula. It is not automatic. The order has been made under section 6(2) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, but under section 6(3) the Secretary of State has an option, if he so wishes to bring in alternative regulations to effect an increase in the specified sum deducted which is lower than the rate of inflation, or no increase at all. Therefore, we condemn the Government, not because it is automatic, but because as a matter of policy they rejected that option.
We condemn, too, the pusillanimous manner in which the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, have tried to hide behind the pretence of automaticity in the formula in order to avoid taking direct responsibility for a highly partisan and callous decision.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that unless I introduce secondary legislation to the House there is no way in which these increases will not go ahead?

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State is obliged by section 6 to bring in an order. However, that order gives him the option, subject to an affirmative resolution of the House, to bring in an increase of any size that he wishes and not in accordance with the formula that he has chosen. That is the key point.

Mr. Fowler: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not understand the law. Even if I had not set down the declaratory order last week, the changes would have taken place automatically. The only way in which they could have been avoided was by my introducing affirmative orders in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State is simply confirming the point that I have already made. He could perfectly well have brought in alternative orders secondary legislation — to have effected a different result. If the Secretary of State and his colleagues had any humanity, that is exactly what would have been done.
We condemn, too, the hole-in-the-corner evasiveness with which this episode has been handled. Had I not tabled a parliamentary question a week ago which forced an answer from the Government last Wednesday, I have good reason to believe that no mention of the increased disqualification of benefit would have been made before today. If the Secretary of State denies that, I shall be interested to know when, alternatively, it would have been made.

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman asks, it was going to be announced on the Wednesday when it was announced.

Mr. Meacher: If the Secretary of State expects us to believe that, he must be extremely gullible. I am sure, from conversations that I have had with the Minister for Social Security, that there was no intention to announce this before today, the very day on which the order—

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Antony Newton): Without wishing to engage in some great personal wrangle with the hon. Gentleman, may I say for the record that I have no recollection of any conversation which could conceivably have given that impression? I wish to make it clear that there was no intention whatever to leave that matter until today.

Mr. Meacher: I did not particularly wish to bring this matter before the House, but, as the Minister has deliberately raised it, the conversation to which I am referring took place in the Norman Shaw North building after we had both taken part in a television interview. It was in the course of that conversation that the Minister clearly gave me that impression. If that was a false impression, or if I have misinterpreted it, I withdraw what I have said.

Mr. Newton: I do not want to hold the hon. Gentleman up, but he did misunderstand, and that should be clear.

Mr. Meacher: I accept that there may have been a misunderstanding, but, even if I accept the explanation which the Secretary of State and the Minister have given, it is extraordinary that the matter should be brought to the House only five days before implementation. Why was it only brought to the House at the last possible moment when, for example, last year the Government laid the corresponding order on 28 September, two months before implementation? Why was this the sole item that was omitted from the Secretary of State's uprating statement in the summer? Equally, why was that item not mentioned in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement two weeks ago? Was it not because the Government hoped to short-circuit any reaction, to stifle debate, to prevent proper discussion in the House and, no doubt, to increase the pressure of hardship on miners' families while the Christmas bonus pay offer was being dangled before them?

Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already mentioned that there is great pressure to speak in this debate.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State will have an opportunity to speak immediately after me and he can make his points then.
Above all, we condemn this squalid little order because it is patently a strike-breaking instrument designed to secure victory in a bitter industrial dispute — not by negotiation, which is the proper way, but by intensifying and redoubling the hardship of women and children.
The Secretary of State admitted in a radio broadcast on Thursday morning that some families would "undeniably" be worse off. The fact is that all families subject to the deduction will be worse off. The full supplementary benefit uprating is needed simply to restore the purchasing power to last year's level, but all those families will be getting £1 a week less than is needed for that purpose.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my hon. Friend accept that I endorse every single aspect of the arguments that he is making in his excellent speech? But will he endorse my view that this is the way to advance these arguments, and not by means of that damaging and ill-judged demonstration the other evening?

Mr. Meacher: As a result of that spontaneous demonstration there has undoubtedly been more attention given to this infamous deduction than would otherwise have been the case, and we also have this debate as a result of that demonstration.
It is ironic that on the day on which the Government are knocking £1 off miners' benefits they are also knocking £1 off the benefits of the poorest pensioners who get the heating allowance. Of course, £1 may not seem much to Cabinet Ministers on £41,000 a year—£800 a week—or to hon. Members on £16,000 a year, but to those on the poverty line or below it the loss of yet another £1 a week is heartbreaking.
If anyone needs a symbol of Thatcherite Britain 1984, it is those two deductions being made on the day of the so-called uprating.
Ministers rage at the intervention of the Churches in this deeply embittered industrial dispute. They do not realise that bishops enter industrial disputes not lightly, but only when they believe that deep moral issues are at stake. The provision of adequate food, fuel and housing for children and their mothers is one such issue. It is an imperative which should never be overridden in any civilised society.
Children have already died in this dispute, scraping for fuel in desperation. Before it is too late, the Government should reconsider what they are doing. For reasons of morality and humanity, we ask the Government to withdraw the order.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
're-affirms the policy established by the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 that those on strike should be expected to contribute to the cost of maintaining their families; notes that, consequent on the general uprating on social security benefits, all but a tiny minority of strikers receiving supplementary benefit are being paid the same or more benefit, not less; acknowledges that the Government have as in previous years followed the requirements of the Act in uprating the "specified sum" to be deducted from benefit payable for strikers' dependants; acknowledges that the National Coal Board has negotiated constructively in reaching a


settlement with the National Assocation of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers on the central issues of the dispute; and condemns the failure of the National Union of Mineworkers either to meet its obligations to its members and their families or to move from its total unreasonable position in negotiations.'.
The House will have heard and noted what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. His charge is that we have stifled debate, yet at no stage did he condemn, as his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) condemned, the action that we saw on Wednesday night.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: In a minute. The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about spontaneous debate. Frankly, that is the best and biggest commentary upon the leadership of the Opposition Front Bench that I can think of.

Mr. Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I passed him a note after the demonstration the other evening. Will he publish it in the Library, because in it I clearly spelt out my opinion of the Government and of his judgment?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that the nature of the hon. Gentleman's note lends itself to easy printing in any form. I am sure that he has ways of making his views known.
The central charge by the hon. Member for Oldham, West basically is that the Government are pursuing a direct campaign against the families of those on strike. Let me put two facts to the House.
First, the latest figures show that so far in this dispute £23 million has been paid out to the families of striking miners. Benefit is being paid at the rate of almost £¾ million a week. In addition, every recipient of supplementary benefit has rent and rates paid in full, through housing benefit, and the financial total is added to by the payment of child benefit.
Against that background, I say that it is frankly ludicrous to charge that the Government are pursuing a vindictive campaign against strikers' families. One would be hard pressed to find another country in the world where in such circumstances more is done by the Government.
I would find all those words of the hon. Gentleman a deal more convincing if at any stage in the dispute the National Union of Mineworkers had paid anything to its members' families at all. It has paid for pickets, but not for families.
The second fact is that we are uprating the specified sum at the same time as we are uprating other social security benefits, including supplementary benefit. The result of that is not a loss of £1 for families. The result is that the vast majority of families—85 per cent.—receive more in benefit, not less.
The latest figures show that on 6 November 35,000 strikers' families were receiving supplementary benefit. That figure has almost certainly now been reduced as a result of the accelerating return to work. On the basis of those figures, 30,000 families will be receiving more benefit this week than they did last week. All but a handful of the remainder will receive exactly the same as last week. We estimate that perhaps 100 or 200 families will be subject to a maximum weekly loss of 55p. That means that 85 per cent. of families will gain cash, and that no families will lose £1. Again I say that it is frankly ludicrous

to charge that we are attacking strikers' families when we are, in fact, in the vast majority of cases, paying them more this week than last week.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House and to those listening to the debate exactly who will be worse off? Is it not a fact that a striking miner who is a widower or divorced—in other words, who does not have a wife, but has one or two children to bring up on his own—is the person about whom the Secretary of State is talking? Is he not talking about those with the least amount of money, who are hit hardest by the cuts?

Mr. Fowler: About 85 per cent. of families will receive more cash, and the majority of the remainder will receive the same amount. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the man whose dependent wife has left home. To that extent the hon. Gentleman is correct, but he will concede that the only way in which such a family will be put in such a position is in relation to mortgage interest, which is already being paid, and about which there is controversy.
The heart of this debate is where responsibility lies for a striker and his family. The case of the hon. Member for Oldham, West is simple. He believes that responsibility rests with the public; in other words, that the public should bear the losses that are being made, should suffer any consequences of the strike arid should bear the total cost of support during the strike. He says that he has the NUM's support for that view.
Millions throughout the country — many of them earning far less than the miners—do not see why the public should shoulder all the responsibilities. They do not understand the action of a union which calls its members out on strike without a ballot and in damaging month after damaging month makes no contribution to their support. The public reject the case that the union has no responsibility, but that is basically the case that has been put by the hon. Member for Oldham. West from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? The money that is deemed to be paid is taken from money that is paid to the wives and children of strikers. The state is not being asked to support the strikers. That has never been the position and it was not the position during the periods when I was on strike. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Fowler: There is no question of withdrawing my statement. I have stated accurately the precise position. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about deemed strike pay. If he reads the 1980 legislation he will learn that the deduction—it was originally £12 and there is now the uprating — is made from the supplementary benefit which is paid. There is nothing to withdraw. I have stated the position.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ravings that we hear are sickening to those of us who read that £20,000 or more changes hands via suitcases and is used to finance thugs on the picket line, when that money could be used to help families which are suffering deprivation? Is it more important to finance those who are breaking the law or those for whom this fictitious debate has been initiated?

Mr. Fowler: I think that many will agree with the argument that my hon. Friend has advanced. He is right to say that there is a responsibility upon the union in these circumstances. There are many trade unionists who reject the case that has been made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
Let us go back to the time when the Bill which introduced the deduction was passing through Committee. The former Member for Wood Green, Mr. Reg Race, was a member of the Committee. If we agree on little else, I think it will be common ground that Mr. Race is not one of those members of the Labour party who is likely to slip away in the night to join the Social Democratic party. During the debates in Committee Mr. Race was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) whether he thought that the unions had no responsibility to their members during any strike. Mr. Race replied:
Of course, I do … I shall tell the hon. Gentleman my experience of strike pay. My union—the National Union of Public Employees—pays £5 a week in strike pay. That is in the rule book. Everyone on official strike gets £5 a week from the union."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1980: c. 1007–1008.]
Labour Members talk about their compassion and concern for the families of striking miners, but their remarks should have been addressed first to the NUM many months ago. Instead of trying to play conjuring tricks with foreign bank accounts, the union could have been using its funds to help its members and their families.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Secretary of State give some advice to the wives who are suffering? Is he aware that they do not have a vote within the National Union of Mineworkers? What advice will he give to a wife who begs her husband to go back to work and he refuses to take that advice? Why should she still suffer a loss of £16?

Mr. Fowler: The operation of the deduction has been clear from the beginning of the dispute. There has been no change in the rules and regulations governing it. Every member of the NUM knew what his position would be when he went into the dispute.
I deal now with the original issue which led to the debate, which is the uprating of the "specified sum" defined in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. The "specified sum" is the amount that is deducted from supplementary benefit that is payable to strikers' dependants. The deduction was introduced in 1980 to fulfil a commitment in the manifesto on which the Government were elected in 1979. It was introduced to establish a fairer balance between the responsibilities of the state and the individual in caring for his dependants. We took the view that the responsibility should not simply pass to the state. The practice is set out in precise detail in the 1980 Act. The original "specified sum" of £12 was defined on the face of the Act, and the procedure by which that sum should be uprated is set out in explicit terms.
The Act requires that the "specified sum" should be uprated whenever there is a general uprating of social security benefits. It requires also that the "specified sum" should be uprated by the percentage that is used to uprate national insurance pensions and the resulting amount rounded to the nearest 50p. This year the relevant percentage is 5·1 per cent., and that produces a final figure of £16.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the Secretary of State aware that the relevant word is

"strikers"? A group of workers who are not members of a trade union may feel strongly about an issue and go on strike. Other workers may be members of a trade union and notwithstanding an official recommendation not to go on strike may still decide to do so. Is it not clear that the Government's policy is to attack all strikers' families, whether they are official strikers, unofficial strikers, or even non-trade unionists? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is precisely what the law says? Does he accept that the Government are against ordinary working people who go on strike because they cannot agree to accept what rotten employers are doing to them?

Mr. Fowler: With the exception of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, his intervention is based on total truth. The uprating concerns supplementary benefit and a deduction from supplementary benefit. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. That is precisely what I have been trying to put to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way again. The Government can vary the formula only by introducing orders which are subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. I see no reason of principle or practice why this course should have been taken in this year. In 1982 there was an industrial dispute in the Health Service, which, like the miners' strike, lasted for many months. On that occasion the deduction was increased by £1·50 to £14·50 and there was no challenge to that policy from Labour Members. I cannot see what there is in the NUM's dispute which would lead to the Government's taking the quite exceptional step of changing the law to prevent the increase taking place.

Mr. Alan Williams: In that case, I am slightly puzzled by the words in the Act. The Government put that power into the Act in order to vary the amount that they deduct. When did they write that in? Why will they not use that power now? If they will not use that power now, in what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage using that power?

Mr. Fowler: Of course the Government have given themselves discretion in circumstances of this kind. I see absolutely no reason at this moment to change that position. Frankly, it is ridiculous to ask me to forecast the circumstances in which that would be done.
The procedure followed this year, as in previous years, is laid down in the statute. However much the hon. Member for Oldham, West seeks to deny it, the procedure takes place automatically, unless the law is changed. It takes place also whether or not I announce the change. All those points are well known to the hon. Gentleman

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way.
Under the Act, I am required to sign a declaratory order, which records what the "specified sum" defined by the Act is. The order is not a regulation and is not laid before the House. By convention a copy is placed in the Library of the House, and that was done last Wednesday. I make it clear to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that this order is not an Order in Council. It has nothing to do with the Privy Council and does not depend upon, and is not in any way an abuse of, the royal prerogative.
Then there comes the final and perhaps the strongest charge from the hon. Member for Oldham, West: that, in the words of the Opposition motion, the Government have sought to "stifle debate" on this issue. It almost beggars belief that, following the scenes on Wednesday night, the Opposition can solemnly table a motion accusing the Government of stifling debate. The fact is that, far from stifling debate, we gave, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West has conceded, more publicity to the announcement this year than on any previous occasion.

Mr. Heffer: Not the Government; we did.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman really believes—I put it in the classic phrase of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—that only a spontaneous demonstration can draw the public's attention to this matter, it says little for the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is the Opposition spokesman on social security, and his powers.
We informed the House by answering a question asked by the principal Opposition spokesman on social services affairs, the hon. Member for Oldham West, and accompanied that answer with a notice to the press, which is the only time that has been done. That strikes me as a peculiar hole in a peculiar corner if one is seeking to smuggle out an announcement.
Surely the real question on stifling debate is for the Opposition Front Bench to answer. The House clearly recalls that on Wednesday night the Opposition asked specifically for a statement on this subject. I came to the House to make that statement, but I was prevented from giving any but a few words of it and the statement was torn in two.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was not my tearing up of one page of his statement but his actions during the past five days that will result in tearing up the lives of pensioners, the unemployed, single parents and especially the families of striking miners? The actions of his Government are much more vindictive and violent than the action which resulted in the right hon. Gentleman losing a bit of paper on Wednesday night.

Mr. Fowler: I shall leave the public to judge the case that I am putting and the case that the hon. Gentleman is putting.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I do not believe that there can have been a clearer or more blatant example of stifling debate than what we saw on Wednesday night, yet on this central issue the hon. Member for Oldham, West preferred to maintain a modest silence during his speech. Perhaps he did not notice his hon. Friends standing before the Table. Perhaps he did not notice the statement being torn up. Perhaps he simply preferred not to notice and that is what now passes for leadership on the Opposition Front Bench.
The statement has now been made. I shall leave the public to judge, and I am content to rest on the facts that I have set out. The supine indifference of the Opposition Front Bench to the tactics of Wednesday night exactly mirrors their disregard for the violence perpetrated outside the House. It demonstrates why the Labour party will never form a Government.

Mr. Jack Ashley: If the Government supporters believe the farrago of nonsense

that we have just heard, they will believe anything. The Secretary of State has shown conclusively that he fails to understand some of the basic issues in this debate. I was amazed that the Secretary of State quoted what Reg Race said in Committee. I was amazed also that the right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Government are doing so much for strikers' families.
The Secretary of State said that he was content to allow the facts to speak for themselves. He omitted to mention one fact—that this debate and the cheating of miners' families is taking up time at exactly the time when the Government are giving millions of pounds to the people involved with floating British Telecom. The Government are giving no less than £67 million to encourage people to buy British Telecom shares. The income of directors is soaring. The Government are giving £4 million to stockbrokers. It is ludicrous to take these few pounds from miners' families when the Government are giving those sums.
When the Secretary of State says that the families are getting more he is insulting the intelligence of the House of Commons. We know that they are getting more in cash, but their real incomes are falling. That is why the Secretary of State is misleading the House. It is real incomes that matter and are relevant, and it is real incomes that are suffering. The Government are guilty of mauling the incomes of miners' families during this important strike.
The Government are dividing the nation with this measure. They are indulging in strike breaking. The Government had the foresight in 1980 to bring forward the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, and now they are smashing a union and bringing up the heavy artillery. The Government, in a most cowardly fashion, are trying to smash the NUM. They are not hitting the union or the miners, they are hitting the wives and children. Could anything be more cowardly than that?
The Secretary of State has put forward a number of absurd excuses. Previously, he has said that strikes are the first resort. The fact that the miners refused to strike en two occasions shows that that is not so.
The Secretary of State was saying that at the heart of the debate was the fact that trade unionists should accept responsibility for their strikes. That showed that he does not understand the position. When he quoted Reg Race saying that NUPE paid £5 to its members, the Secretary of State doubly misunderstood. When Reg Race spoke in Committee, he was speaking only of NUPE paying £5. When an industrial union such as the NUM calls a strike, nearly everyone goes on strike. If the NUM were to pay strike pay it would be quickly bankrupt. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he knows that that is right.
The Government's aim is to bankrupt the NUM. The Secretary of State will not say that, because he speaks in coded language. He says that he is prepared to accept trade unionism, but instead of using coded language the Government should have the courage of their cons action and clearly explain that they are trying to smash the trade unions. This attempt to smash the NUM exposes the hollowness of the Government's stance. When they say that they support the right of people to withdraw their labour, they mean that they support that right provided that the strike is short and ineffective, and provided that the strikers lose. When there is a tough, difficult strike, such as the miners' strike, the Government are prepared to play dirty.
In totalitarian countries, Governments say that they are prepared to support the right of free speech, provided that people do not speak too freely. This Government are prepared to support trade unionism provided that the trade unions stay on their knees and are prepared to fight a battle and damage the economy.
I believe that two consequences will follow from this measure. The first is that by hitting miners' wives and children the Secretary of State will strengthen rather than weaken miners' resolve. Miners will not be blackmailed. Last week, Lord Stockton said that they were the men who defeated the Kaiser and Hitler. He was right. The miners are brave men and brave men cannot be blackmailed. Blackmail will fail. It will be counter-productive. The Secretary of State is making the dispute even worse.
The whole of the trade union movement is becoming deeply embittered by the Secretary of State's cowardly action; that corrosive bitterness will gradually seep into industrial relations, and when it does British industry and industrial relations will be damaged. The whole of Great Britain will be damaged by this mean and cowardly measure.
I believe that Ministers will rue the day that they decided to give millions to stockbrokers through British Telecom and snatch pennies from miners' wives and children. This measure is disgraceful, divisive and destructive.

Mrs. Jill Knight: There is an air of unreality and faked outrage about the debate. Listeners with no knowledge of the background —[Interruption.] Hon. Members can shout themselves hoarse, but I am going to be heard. Listeners to the debate might well go away believing that the Government had introduced a completely new and unexpected measure and one which would universally cut the amounts of money payable to striking miners for their children. All that is utter poppycock. There is nothing new about what has happened. Every year since 1980, as regular as clockwork, the "specified sum" —to use the jargon of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980—[Interruption.] I can shout louder than Opposition Members, I promise them that.
To put the matter into words which even the Opposition can understand, when benefits are uprated, which happens every year so that the poorest and most needy among us can be helped to meet the extra costs of inflation and improve their position, the "specified sum" is increased also.
It seems fair that if the unions call their members out on strike that they must pay for the privilege.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Stan Crowther: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther).

Mr. Crowther: As the High Court, rightly or wrongly, has decided that the miners' strike is unofficial, it would clearly be unlawful for the union to pay strike pay. It would clearly be in contempt of court. Is the hon. lady asking the NUM to break the law by paying strike pay to its members when the strike has been said to be unofficial?

Mrs. Knight: It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman can speak so clearly with his tongue so firmly in his cheek. As the NUM has been breaking the law since day one of the strike, we can dismiss that point.
It seems fair to me that every year when benefits are uprated, the "specified sum" should be increased. It cannot be fair that taxpayers should pay more when men are called out on strike by their union. Every year, as benefits go up in line with inflation, the sum deemed to be contributed by the unions goes up also.
To regard this measure, as apparently some hon. Members do, as something entirely new shows that Opposition Members have never considered what happened formerly. That justifies the suspicion that they do not keep abreast of legislation, have forgotten it, or do not bother to check their facts before coming to the House.
As for being a completely unexpected move, I suggest that Opposition Members study what has happened each year since 1980. In 1980 the disregard was £12; in 1981 it was £13; and in 1982 it was £14·50. It is funny, but we do not remember any violent demonstrations, tearing up of statements or seizing of the Mace when the disregard went up by £1·50. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are on thin ground. They say that this measure is an exception, but there is nothing new about it. The House was not even sitting when the disregard was increased by £1·50. We could not have had a debate on it in any case.
I shall return to the record, but it is not surprising that hon. Members do not like to listen to these figures. In 1983 the figure was £.15, and in 1984 it is £16. There is no surprise there and nothing unexpected to anyone who has looked at the record. What has happened this year is exactly in accordance with the formula set out in the legislation, but apparently Opposition Members have not understood it.

Mr. Rooker: I do not think that what the hon. Lady has just said is true. Can she tell us why the specified sum is based on an increase of 5·1 per cent., which is the increase in long-term benefit, whereas the benefit concerned is supplementary benefit, which today is going up by only 4·7 per cent.? The difference between 4·7 and 5·1 per cent. may not seem a large amount. Why have the Government chosen 5·1 per cent., which basically is the national insurance increase, instead of 4·7 per cent.? If they had taken the latter figure it would not, even with rounding up, have come to £16.

Mrs. Knight: I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong. It has always been exactly the same.

Mr. Rooker: No.

Mrs. Knight: There is no change whatever here.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, there is.

Mrs. Knight: I am bound to say, in as polite a way as I can, that I resent the hon. Member suggesting that the figures are incorrect. He can check them in the Library or anywhere else. He will find that they are accurate and that what is happening now is precisely in accordance with the formula in the legislation.
The next possible reason for the simulated red rage might have been that miners' benefits are being cut. I listened to the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He amazed me with his inability to notice that 85 per cent. of miners are getting more. He concentrated only on the 100


or 200 who are getting less. I did not hear one syllable from the hon. Member about the overwhelming majority of miners who are receiving an increase as a result of the Government's action. For almost all the rest of the miners there is no change. Only a tiny minority—between 100 and 200—are getting less.
If the Opposition's rage is well founded, why do hon. Members not divert to that tiny minority some of the money that is being collected in tin boxes for the NUM? Those collections are being made, much to the rage of many decent citizens throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Hon. Members may say that it is a shame—

Mr. Mark Hughes: When the hon. Lady says that it is wrong for citizens to give money to impoverished women and children, she should be ashamed of herself.

Mrs. Knight: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have had complaints from various charities, which are allowed to collect on only one day in the year, because their collections have been severely reduced. In areas where there are Left-wing councils, the miners' representatives are allowed to collect every week. If Labour Members are really concerned about the needs of 100 or 200 people who will be receiving 55p a week less as a result of the order, they have plenty of money available from the collections to divert to people in need.
The Opposition have found an extraordinary reason for seeking to destroy parliamentary democracy. NUM money is being used to pay people to beat up miners and to threaten working miners and their families. The union is paying people to man the picket lines and to attack people's homes. They are being paid to hurl missiles at the police. If the NUM can pay people to do all those things, why can it not pay something to the 100 or 200 people who will receive 55p a week less?
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said that the Government are trying to smash the unions. The NUM is effectively smashing itself. Nothing could be more effective in smashing the union than the actions of Arthur Scargill. Indeed, I think that he is now becoming well aware of it. I am very sorry for the ordinary, decent miners who are being terrorised into a strike which they do not want. They have had no ballot on the issue.
The Opposition motion speaks of "stifling debate". I do not think that to quote an hon. Member's words from the Official Report can be said to be an attack on that hon. Member. Indeed, if I had regarded it as an attack on him I would have written to him prior to the debate. But the demonstration last Wednesday was led by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). When my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) took it into his head to wave the Mace about, he apologised the next day, at the first possible opportunity. On that very occasion the hon. Member for Walton, who led the riot last Wednesday, said:
It does no good to parliamentary democracy or to the future of parliamentary institutions in this country if scenes such as those which occurred last night are repeated in the future.
Who is repeating those scenes now?

Mr. Heffer: Nobody was waving the Mace about.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman continued:

I trust that a firm decision will be taken to ensure that in future we do not have scenes of that kind as a result of the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House."—[Official Report, 28 May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 770.]
The hon. Gentleman says one thing when his party is in power and another thing when it is not. If any party is stifling debate, it is not the party to which I have the honour to belong.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall try to be as dispassionate as possible. I understand the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members who represent mining constituencies, but I should like to be as objective as I can and to put the alliance point of view. We have an amendment on the Order Paper and I shall refer to it during my brief speech.
The Government have right on their side when they say that the legislation has not changed since 1980. I do not think that anyone would argue about that. But I put it to the Secretary of State that the circumstances have changed in several respects.
The mining communities have been denied the right of a national ballot. I regret that, and it may put me in a different position from that of other Opposition Members. There have been scenes of violence, which again I regret. That may distance me from other Opposition Members. On the other hand, the Government imposed on the mining industry Mr. MacGregor, fresh from the steel industry where 88,000 jobs were lost. The Government gave signals to the trade union movement that they were antagonistic to the whole ethic of trade unionism. The Government also deliberately asserted, as part of their policy, that there should be high unemployment. Those actions by the Government have brought about a highly charged situation. It is against that background that we have to consider the Secretary of State's written answer.
I do not think that the provisions in section 6(2) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 are right, and the Government should look at them again. Since then the Government have introduced legislation that will lead to more sequestrations of trade union funds. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to that aspect. The Government are blind if they do not understand that the situation has changed dramatically since 1980.

Mr. Rooker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there is another reason why the Government should allow debate. No one has reminded the House that the Government stifled debate on clause 6 of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill in 1980. They guillotined the Bill half way through clause 1.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that intervention, and the House is better informed for it. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record in the House. That is an important point, which has not yet been made.
The Secretary of State is right that, if there had been a national ballot, today we would not have been discussing the whole issue of deemed strike pay and clawback. Large bodies of miners are on strike, but they desperately want to go back to work. They are looking to the Government for succour and support. The way that the Government introduced the order through a written answer on Wednesday was wrong.
If the Secretary of State plays it by the book, he is right to say that a regulation under section 6(3) would need to be introduced. However, Governments with the majority enjoyed by this Government have discretion at just about any stage in the game. The right hon. Gentleman should have recognised that we are in a unique position. This is a unique dispute and we are at a unique time within it. It was wrong for the Secretary of State to come along with the order on Thursday, three or four days before the upratings were due. Whether it was calculated or not, he appeared to be maliciously and gratuitously disregarding the feelings of miners' families. Thus, he deserves the criticism that he is getting today. There is all the difference in the world between the three other annual upratings in September and this uprating, when the announcement was made only four days before the uprating was due.
The Secretary of State could have been doing two things. First, he could have been hiding. He could have been frit to come to the House, so he waited until the last moment. I do not believe that. I have given him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he was considering not doing it. The House deserves an answer as to why this year, compared with the three previous years, there was a two months' difference, which is a significant difference. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to that and give us an answer when he winds up.
I was considerably heartened by the way in which the Minister of State handled the earlier incident of the withdrawal of some benefits to miners who had difficulty getting death grants. He skilfully managed to defuse that difficult and emotional situation just after he had assumed office. I took great heart from that. However, why was such an approach not extended to the order?
With regard to costs, as far as I can make out, only about 36,000 families are involved. Even if they all get £1, that is a very small sum of money in regard to the costs of the strike as a whole. I should like to question the formula in section 6(2) of the 1980 Act. The Minister will know, because he has done the sums, that 5·1 per cent. triggers the extra 50 per cent. and takes the figure up to £1. If the figure had been 4·99 per cent., the increase would have been 50p. There is a substantial difference because of the change. It means that there is now a cut of about 6·7 per cent. in miners' benefits. We can all argue about whether it is more money in real terms, but the figure of 6·7 per cent., which the change from £15 to £16 involves, is unfair and arbitrary. We have said in our reasoned amendment that we think that an element of compromise should have been involved.

Mr. Newton: I should like to make the position absolutely clear. It is in no sense an arbitrary figure. This is also in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is defined as the general uprating percentage—the percentage that operates for retirement pensions. That is what is written into the law, and that is why the figure was 5·1 per cent.

Mr. Kirkwood: I accept what the Minister says, but I am arguing that he had the discretion and should have been big enough and dispassionate enough to look at the matter and give us a compromise that at least would have let the Government come to the House and say, "We understand that there are problems. The law has been in effect since 1980, but we are prepared to make

concessions." The effect is that the Government are playing straight into the hands of the hard-line members of the NUM executive.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to the precise meaning of the phrase "Standard Sum Deduction" in the alliance amendment?

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want to go into the detail of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The purpose of the amendment is clear. We are trying to get a compromise. I am happy to face the fact that it is a compromise. The mechanics of working out the compromise are less important than the principle involved.
The effect of everything that the Government have done is simply to play into the hands of the hard-line members of the NUM executive, and is against the interests of miners on strike who find it impossible to put behind them the traditions in the mining communities, which have been going on for years, and cross the picket lines. They find it almost impossible to be seen to support a Government with whom they have no connection or sympathies. They also find it difficult because of the equivocal position taken by the official Opposition in the dispute. More than anything else, it is impossible for them to face the Government's actions when they take such decisions in the way that they have.
The change is unnecessary, unfair, ill-timed and naive. I hope that the Government will consider changing their mind.

Mr. Michael Howard: When this matter first came to the attention of the House on Wednesday last week, the declaratory order that gave rise to this debate was described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as almost without precedent. Of course, they got that completely wrong, as we now know, although the hon. Member for Oldham, West has yet to withdraw what he said last Wednesday. There is nothing especially unusual about the fact that they got it completely wrong, nor, normally, would it be of any significance, but it is significant in this instance. It is significant for this reason. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, orders precisely similar to the order that is presently being discussed were made in each year since the 1980 Act was put on the statute book.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West pays close attention to these matters. If there had been anything objectionable about the uprating process, the hon. Gentleman would have been very familiar with the sort of order that is under discussion. He would have known precisely the form that it takes. Had there been any question of it being objectionable, he and his colleagues would have raised objections to it. Perhaps the most telling sign that the indignation on Opposition Benches is bogus and synthetic is the fact that in none of those previous years did the uprating process evoke the slightest protest from the Opposition.
It is suggested that the position is somehow different this year because we are in the middle of a strike. Is it suggested by Opposition Members that whenever a strike is in progress at the time when the uprating takes effect,


the uprating should be suspended? That is demonstrably absurd. The purpose of section 6 of the 1980 Act is to make deductions from the supplementary benefit that would otherwise be payable to strikers' dependants. The whole purpose is that the burden of supporting those dependants should be shared between the trade union concerned and the taxpayer. It is ridiculous to suggest that whenever a strike is in progress, the uprating should be cancelled in some way.
Is it suggested by Opposition Members that the cancellation or suspension should not take place during every strike, but should take place this year because there is something about this strike that is particularly meritorious? If that is their view, it behoves them to tell us wherein they see the special merit of the strike. Is it especially meritorious because it is taking place without a ballot, in breach of the union rule book? Is it especially meritorious because, wherever a ballot has taken place, those balloted have voted in favour of continuing to work? Does its special merit lie in the fact that violence has attended it from the outset? Or do they simply think it meritorious because of their special affection for Mr. Scargill and Mr. McGahey, who have led it? It would be interesting to know the views of the Leader of the Opposition on that question.
We must not lose sight of the realities of the matter. We are discussing the extent to which the taxpayer should contribute to the support of the dependants of those on strike. We are discussing the amount which people—and many of my constituents earn a good deal less than the wage available to every coal miner—should contribute to the dependants of the strikers. We are discussing the extent to which those miners who are currently working should contribute to the dependants of those who hurl abuse at them on the picket line and threaten them with violence. Perhaps we are even discussing the extent to which Mr. Michael Fletcher should contribute to the dependants of those who attacked him or Mr. Stuart Spencer to the dependants of those who burnt his house. That is what we are really discussing today, and the House should keep such matters in the forefront of its mind.
Thus far, I have addressed my remarks to the official Opposition. I shall now consider the views of the alliance, whose spokesman is unable to explain the very term in the alliance amendment. Last Thursday the House was treated to a characteristic exhibition on the part of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Dev onport (Dr. Owen). I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here. I informed him that I intended to make some observations about his remarks. The House has become accustomed to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman characteristically makes feverish attempts to strike out a position which is different from that of the Government and that of the official Opposition. The House has seen his kind before. George Canning once said of Lord Brougham:
The hon. and learned Gentleman having in the course of his parliamentary life supported or proposed almost every species of innovation which could be practised on the constitution it was not very easy for ministers to do anything without seeming to borrow from him. Breakaway in what direction they would, whether to the right or to the left, it was all alike. 'Oh', said the hon. gentleman, 'I was there before you: you would not have thought of that if I had not given you a hint' … There was no noise astir for the good of mankind, in any part of the world, but he instantly claimed it for his thunder.
Lord Brougham was described elsewhere as "Mr. Facing-two-ways". We were given a demonstration of

such behaviour on Thursday which was more vivid than we have seen for some while, when the right hon. Gentleman asked a question during Prime Minister's Question Time.
We know that the alliance Members are anxious to attack the Government and to distance themselves from the Opposition. They therefore do not say that the Government should continue with the automatic process of uprating, or on the other hand that the regulation should be used so that there would be no uprating. They recommend halving the difference. That is the characteristic alliance approach to such matters. They suggest that the figure should be not £1, but 50p. That suggestion illustrates particularly aptly the absurdities into which the alliance is led by the desire to strike a posture for the sake of striking a posture which is different from the attitude of the Government and that of the official Opposition.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: This afternoon the Secretary of State said that he could see no argument in terms of either principle or practice for behaving in any other way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as such a bitter and damaging dispute is going on, there is at least an argument in terms of political pragmatism for taking action which will not drive people into the hands of the extremists within the NUM? Will not this action only add to the suspicion that that is what will happen?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman believes that his 50p will achieve that objective. I suggest that the way in which that objective should be achieved is by the holding of a ballot by the NUM. The members of the NUM could then express their views on their future, and those who are at present having to share the burden of supporting the dependants of strikers — even after the Government's measures — would no longer have to shoulder that burden because, after the ballot, everyone would return to work.

Mr. Tony Benn: The people to whom the order applies know what is going on. The Government may try to mislead the House or themselves, but everyone who is on strike in the coalfields knows what the Government are doing. They are taking money from the families of striking miners to force them back to work.
People in the coalfields also know that the Government tried to do it without telling the House. [Interruption] A written answer was put out in a press release last week, and everyone knows that if a number of hon. Members, including myself, had not stood before the Table there would have been no debate today. Everyone knows that perfectly well, because the Secretary of State said that he had no option, whereas section 6(3) of the 1980 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has mentioned, gives him the option of preparing and presenting regulations which would allow a variation.
No one who is on strike—and three-quarters of the miners in north Derbyshire are on strike—has any doubt that this is part of a long process of fraudulent attacks upon the striking miners.

Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: No, I am developing my argument.
One immediate example of the fraud is that on 6 November Mr. Justice Vinelott gave an order in court that would make it illegal for north Derbyshire NUM to pay any strike pay. The judge says to the union, "If you pay strike pay, we will jail your leaders." The Minister then produces an order which is based on a pretence that the union is paying strike pay. There is only one word for that: it is a fraud, perpetrated by the Government in combination with the court.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: No. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what is being said by the people on strike. The people on strike know very well that the argument about the closure of the pits on economic grounds is another fraud. Nuclear power has never received a penny of private investment. Nuclear power has never been profitable. No one has invested in it. Why? The answer is that it is subsidised to the hilt by the Government, to produce nuclear weapons. The argument about the pits being uneconomic is wholly false.
People in the coalfields know well that we get oil out of the North sea at $7 or $8 a barrel and sell it to the generating board at $28 a barrel. Every unit of electricity generated by North sea oil is 40 per cent. more expensive than that generated by coal. The argument that pits are uneconomic is fraudulent, and people know it.
In the past few days they have also learnt that the Secretary of State for Energy, who made a speech about Mr. Harold Macmillan's compassion, is also a fraud, because while he was drafting and preparing that speech he was party to an order which would take another £1 off striking miners' families. There is no doubt that they expected that because, from the beginning, the Government's case against the NUM has been fraudulent. There have been fraudulent arguments about the economics of the pits; there has been fraudulent presentation of the argument about Cortonwood, when the Government broke their word; there have been fraudulent promises about there being no compulsory redundancies, which even Mr. MacGregor has to renege on because that might bring him into trouble with NACODS all over again; there have been fraudulent bribes to go back when the money with which the Government are bribing miners to return to work before Christmas belongs to the striking miners—it is holiday pay which was earned last year and which has been witheld by the NCB.
There has also been intimidation of the miners by the police, under the instructions of the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Conservative Members who are laughing should go and see what is happening on the picket line. Labour Members who go out, as I do, on the picket lines every week see hundreds of police who are snatching people without any grounds for doing so. They are arresting women. I know of one woman who was arrested because she was alleged to have shouted something. She was released the next day, but when she was arrested the police left her three-month-old baby in a pram in a park. They did not notice that the baby had been left, despite her protestations. [Interruption.] I am not trying to persuade anyone. The Government's weakness and our great strength is that, even now, the Government have not the slightest idea what they have taken on. They have taken

on a large number of very decent people who will not agree to see their fellow miners being destroyed by the MacGregor policy—as happened in the case of steel.
We also have the fraud of the magistrates' bail conditions under which people are having their civil liberties taken away without any trial, by the use of bail conditions which have allegedly been approved by a judge. The result is that, I think, 6,000 pending trials have been deferred, and deferred for month after month.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way. I shall leave my comments about the disgraceful way in which Parliament has avoided discussing the miners' strike to the end of my speech. There has been fraudulent use of bail conditions, by magistrates, and then the Home Secretary said that striking miners might face life sentences for picketing offences. Everyone in the north Derbyshire coalfield knows—

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman can try to catch the Chair's eye later.

Mr. Marlow: Disgraceful.

Mr. Benn: Everybody knows that judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who is a Cabinet colleague of the Home Secretary, and that when the Home Secretary makes a statement about his expecting life sentences for picketing offences that is as clear, as has ever happened in my life, as an instruction from the Executive to the judiciary.
We also have the fraudulent figures that are published. We had another set today from the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall go over what I was able to mention only briefly in my supplementary question. In June the Prime Minister said that 50,000 miners were working. On 3 July she said that 60,000 were working, and on 25 October she said that 70,000 were working. Even the NCB claims that only 62,000 members of the NUM are working. We are witnessing a fraudulent presentation of figures by Ministers, which are taken up by the BBC and ITN—the strike-breakers' bulletin—trying to get miners to go back to work.
Throughout the whole of the dispute there have been only two debates on the miners' strike until today, which is only a half-day debate. One, in June, was on policing, and the other was at the end of July. I have tried several times to get an emergency debate. Mr. Speaker is bound by the Standing Orders and has never been able to find that the miners' strike merited interference with the normal course of business.
I am not here to criticise Mr. Speaker's judgment. I am here to criticise Parliament for failing to give due regard to the terrible hardship and anxiety of those who have devoted their lives to the mining industry, upon whom the future of that industry depends, and against whom the Government have launched a "civil war". Mr. Brian Walden, a former hon. Member, said so in The Standard last Tuesday. What we are witnessing on the picket lines is a war by the Government against the miners, the NUM, the trade union movement, civil liberties and the elementary decencies of civilised life. Parliament has hardly found time to discuss it apart from at Question Time.
I want to be brief and should like to finish with a warning to Ministers. They do not know what they are up


against. They believe, like Ian Smith in Rhodesia, that it is just a Mr. Mugabe and a few troublemakers. They have no idea that miners support Mr. Arthur Scargill because, for five years, Arthur Scargill has warned the miners that when the Government were ready they would try to close pits and destroy the NUM. Arthur Scargill is supported by the overwhelming majority of miners because he has proved to be right and what the Government have said from the beginning has been proved to be false, fraudulent and dishonest. That is why the Government will not succeed.
I do not know—how can one?—whether the violence that has been forced upon the miners by the circumstances, for so it has, will get worse. I am torn as to whether I should predict, as did one of my hon. Friends today, that this could become a Northern Ireland situation—if it has not already done so. However, responsibility rests entirely with the Cabinet, which appointed MacGregor and closed pits. Every single incident that has occurred in the coalfields since 6 March when the strike began is the responsibility of the Government.
I tell Conservative Members who came in on the great monetarist wave of enthusiasm that the Tory party has survived in the past by capitulating in time and by giving way to legitimate demands, perhaps later to regroup and try to recover the ground. We now have the first Prime Minister since a head of state known as Charles I who believes that there is some divine right in what he then did and she now does. I tell the House, to which I was elected 34 years ago on Friday, that unless Parliament gives justice to the British people there will be no peace in Britain. Even if the Prime Minister is right and with troops, the help of the BBC and fraudulent figures she can drive starving miners back to work—[HON MEMBERS: "Starving?"]—some have been driven back under those pressures—the Government's problems are only just beginning.
A higher level of political understanding has come in during the past nine months than at any time during my life, and I was born in the year before the general strike. People now understand the true nature of the Tory party—they sell off British Telecom to make quick profits for their friends who financed their victory and take money off the wives of striking miners. People understand the role of the police, the DHSS, magistrates, courts and the media in trying to drive the miners back to where they were years ago—on their knees—before what in time may again be private owners, for the Government will sell off the high productivity pits if they can get away with it.
I warn the House—I do so because I believe that to be one of the functions of an elected Member—that unless justice is given this battle will continue, with increasing bitterness and horror. The responsibility rests with those who began it with the pit closure programme. Today's mean and vicious little order, which we would not have debated without the action taken by some hon. Members, is only one of many attacks on the living standards of the finest group of workers in Britain—those who labour underground to give the country access to coal, our one natural resource in plenty, and upon which our future will be founded. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. If not, they will be defeated by the action which they have themselves provoked.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I overwhelmingly reject the Socialist Opposition's motion. Like Conservative

Members, I am sure that many thinking people in Britain today will reassert their faith in free and fair trade unions; that means one's freedom to join or not to join a trade union. All unions must be democratic, and that is patently and obviously not the case with the union now under discussion. Trade unions should lead their members democratically, and that means a secret and fair ballot, which has been denied to NUM members.
A trade union should primarily safeguard its members. Does the NUM look first and foremost after the welfare of its members? No; it is more interested in evading its legal and moral duties to its members and to the welfare of miners' families. It seeks aid from Moscow, whose satellite states deny free unions, and support from revolutionary Libya.
The NUM would rather purchase a number of prestige cars with personalised number plates than give welfare to its own members. Undoubtedly the care from the union to the mining community does not come from the NUM leadership. The extreme Left is keener on pursuing its political future than on a negotiated settlement. How can the NCB negotiate with an unrepresentative coterie which is constantly changing its ground on shifting sand?
Will the Opposition identify the financial source of violence—the violence that is seen so frequently on the picket line, the violence between miner and miner and the violence in the mining communities, all of which seeks to destroy the social fabric of mining societies?
On Saturday I met a number of families of striking Yorkshire miners, all of whom were sick and tired of this dispute. They want it to end. They are sure that the NUM leaders are motivated by political aims rather than by those of the industry. Those husbands and fathers are intimidated not to go back to work. One of the families to whom I spoke lives in the house nearest to a pit. I was asked why the NUM does not give support to its members through their subscriptions, which all NUM members have made over the years. The truth is that miners' leaders seek to subvert democracy, to undermine the police and the rule of law and to use the taxes taken from ordinary men and women in defence of an undemocratic strike. However, Comrade Scargill prefers to call it a dispute. He cannot use the word "strike"; otherwise he would have to call a ballot according to the NUM rule book.
As well as seeking to intimidate its own members, the NUM also intimidates other workers. The railmen in south Wales, Ravenscraig and north Nottinghamshire have been placed under severe pressure not to work, thereby contributing towards a £180 million loss on the freight side of BR. This nationalised industry has been drawn into a political strike against the wishes of that industry and the union's members and against the welfare of their families.
The role of the state is today multi-faceted. Part of its function is to ensure an adequate standard of living. That must go primarily to the unemployed. Those who are employed but seek to remove their labour in pursuit of a trade dispute must look to their own lobby, not to the general taxpayer.
This declaratory order will from today benefit 85 per cent. of families, including striking miners, through a supplementary benefit increase. Approximately 30,000 will gain, 6,000 will experience no change and a mere 100 to 200 will lose. Already, £23·3 million has been expended on supplementary benefit payments to striking miners' families. How do those who for years have contributed to taxes—those on old age pensions—feel about that?


The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is more concerned with talking than about hearing the true arguments, referred to fraud. This fraud is with the NUM leadership. The essence of the NUM case is that, by adhering to the terms of one set of documents—"Plan for Coal", written more than a decade ago in circumstances very different from those of today—the present number of jobs can be secured indefinitely for all miners working in the industry and their children. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents the plan in a number of respects, not least when he insists that it was substantially revised in 1977 to make jobs even more secure. No such revision took place. The plan was, and is, no simple charter of miners' rights.
Welfare must come first. This Government have shown that priority. The NUM refuses to accept its responsibility to its own members. I support the Prime Minister's amendment, and I hope that it receives overwhelming support in the Lobby.

Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his speech the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) cast aspersions on the judges, who he said were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a Cabinet colleague of the Home Secretary. In particular, he mentioned Mr. Justice Vinelott. First, as a matter of record, Mr. Justice Vinelott was appointed to the High Court bench in 1978 by Lord Elwyn-Jones, then a Cabinet colleague of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Secondly, is it not out of order for hon. Members to cast aspersions on the conduct of judges, and should not the right hon. Gentleman be asked to withdraw his observations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. His language may well have been strong, but it was in order.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: It seems that it is perfectly in order to cast aspersions on trade union leaders unless they are leaders of the union of the judges and those who specialise in the law.
The debate so far has not made it clear that this is a Government attack on women and children who are not among the 123,000 people still on strike. That is important, because without the support of wives, and the women's support groups in particular, for 38 long weeks, this strike would have collapsed many weeks ago.
As any hon. Member for a mining constituency knows, tremendous support has been given by wives who have chipped in money, run soup kitchens and held raffles, jumble sales and fund-raising events. There has been a tremendous community back-up for the striking miners, without which the strike would not have succeeded.

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Ashton: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady has had her turn, and many hon. Members still wish to speak.
Even if the miners' union had done what the Government said it should do and paid £15 a week strike pay, by now it would have had to pay about £18 million, and even the Government accept that it has only £7 million or £8 million in its coffers. It would have been impossible to pay strike pay, so how can it be deemed to be paying strike pay?
Many hon. Members have lived with the strike for the past 38 weeks—my telephone has been ringing from 8 am to about midnight seven days a week—and we know about the problems of hardship. The Government's attitude, through its civil servants in the DHSS, has been one of vicious vindictiveness, screwing down families by using every letter of the law to drive people back to work. When there is a dispute about a benefit claim, the answer from the local DHSS office is that the claimant should appeal, but appeals can take as long as 20 weeks to be heard. If the local office blatantly disregards the rules, and even if a Member of Parliament takes up the case, the answer is still to appeal.
Some of my constituents work in pits in Yorkshire, and some in Nottinghamshire. There have been great differences in adjudications in Yorkshire and in Nottinghamshire, although the cases are similar. In Nottinghamshire, apprentices have been classed as strikers, whereas the adjudicators in Yorkshire have said that apprentices were laid off through no fault of theirs and have granted them benefit. The same has happened with subcontractors whose pits have closed. The Yorkshire adjudicators said that they were not on strike, so they could receive unemployment benefit, but the Nottinghamshire adjudicators decided that they were on strike.

Mr. Michael Welsh: In Wales and the west the commissioner has ruled that subcontractors should receive benefits, yet other authorities will not accept the commissioner's ruling.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is right. There are hardline adjudicators and soft-line adjudicators in different areas, and their decisions depend upon where the miners' families are unfortunate enough to live. In any dispute over claims, miners' families have been told to take their cases to the tribunal, but all the decisions have led to a toughening of the legislation. The Yorkshire adjudicator would not grant benefit to the subcontractors there, and eventually eight subcontractors at Maltby were forced back to work. There was picket line violence and riots because the Government forced them back to work.
A young couple came to see me recently. They have a 17-month-old baby who is brain damaged. The baby had to attend Great Ormond street hospital in London for tests, but the DHSS refused to pay the fares of the mother and father to London. The couple were told that they should appeal but, because the Government have removed the discretion of local DHSS offices in such cases, appeals take many weeks.
In the case of a family in my constituency who have a new-born baby, the toilet broke in half and the stench was coming up through the floor. They did not have the money to buy disinfectant. They had to tie a polythene bag round the hole in the toilet, and the DHSS would not give them a penny to get it repaired. We arranged for the local council—a Labour council—to do the repairs, but the family will have to pay for them when the husband returns to work.
The removal of £16 has been applied not only to wives but to girl friends. A young miner and his girl friend aged 18 were living together and the young woman became pregnant at the beginning of the strike. She is six months pregnant and has not put on an ounce of weight. She has bought no baby clothes. They are living on £6 a week in a flat next to a main road, they have no furniture and the


electricity has been disconnected. She is not even married to a miner, but because of the hard-hearted attitude of the DHSS, she will lose £16 a week. It was only after I intervened that she was classed as sick and received £25 sick pay.
Those who claim family income supplement have been asked to produce the pay slips of their husbands for the previous five weeks. They cannot do so, because the pit has been shut. There is no one at the pit to give them those pay slips, so their claims have been turned down. It is not the wife's fault that the pit is shut. She is not a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and does not have a vote in a ballot.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. At the beginning of his speech he made great play with the support that wives have given to miners. He is now disclaiming that and trying to argue the opposite way. He will have to make up his mind.

Mr. Ashton: The Government's attitude is that the union should pay strike pay, but the decision on that rests, presumably, with the members of the union. The wives and kids are not members of the union, and they have no say in whether the union should pay strike pay. They are not allowed to go to the branch meetings and vote on it, yet the Government punish them. They have taken away £16 from wives who have no say in the running of the strike.
Two weeks ago, one of my constituents left hospital with a five-day-old baby. She went to the DHSS and asked for extra money to buy fuel. The DHSS refused her. The social services department of the county council—again Labour-controlled — gave the family £12 to buy coal. The pit manager, who for many weeks had turned a blind eye to families picking up cobbles from the pit yard, said to the family, "You will get no coal until you go back to work."
There has been tremendous hardship in my part of the country. Little kids have been digging coal out of embankments, not because they are part of the strike but because they want to get a few shillings for Christmas. There were riots in Grimethorpe, where 37 people were arrested for picking up worthless coal from the ground. It was worthless because the Coal Board decided that no one would buy such shale. For many years no one cared who took that coal from the tip, but as soon as the families of striking miners tried to take it, 37 of them were arrested.
The removal of the £16 is not an isolated occurrence. It is part of a systematic attempt by the Government to starve people back to work. There has also been much incompetence in the DHSS. It set up a strike centre in Chesterfield, but it has no proper facilities, computers or organisation. I have met people who received no benefit for as long as five or six weeks, and that includes families with as many as five children. They were desperate. The milkman would not leave them any milk, and there was no question but that the children were hungry. It was only when I kicked up a fuss that they found Mrs. Noy's file at the bottom of a pile. She received about £190 in benefit arrears.
In another case, I received a letter from the Minister asking what my constituent was complaining about because he had not even appealed. Of course he had appealed. The officials at the Chesterfield strike centre found his letter at the bottom of the pile.
Another constituent, Mr. Kelsey, became fed up with the strike and quit Harworth colliery after six weeks. It was a working pit, but he left and got a job as a plasterer in Peterborough. The plasterer's job fell through, so he returned home and claimed unemployment benefit. He claimed that his wife should not have £16 deducted because he had finished at the pit. He had received his holiday pay and his P45. The DHSS turned him down. They told him that he was on strike, so he said, "How come I'm on strike?" He was told that he could benefit from the strike because when it was over and the coal board gave back pay, he could receive some. It has never been known, in the history of mankind, for a boss to give back pay to someone who has left his employment. This hard-line attitude of the adjudicators, who said that the man had never appealed, and then found his file at the bottom of the pile, is very bad. The man is still appealing, and he lost his job in June.
This dispute has been one long round of harassment, and of a systematic, vindictive attitude of "starve them back to work". I am not attacking the local DHSS offices in our areas, who have been very good.

Mr. Barron: It is the adjudicators.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is right. The adjudicators have been acting under instructions to be as tough as possible.

Mr. Newton: First, the hon. Gentlman must know that Ministers are not in a position to issue instructions to the adjudication officers. Secondly, before he and his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) get carried away too much further, I point out that the position on disqualification from unemployment benefit arises from the Labour Government's Social Security Act 1975. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Ashton: Tory Members had better not shout too soon. That Act deals with people who stand to benefit out of a strike, and its provisions have been used in the past, but in this case the decision of the adjudicators was that a man who had quit his job could benefit because there was a pay claim involved in the strike. They claimed that when the man went back to work and the coal board handed out the 5 per cent., or whatever, pay increase, he might then receive back-pay. However, the coal board itself said that there was no way that it would pay back-pay in his case. My constituent had received his cards, his holiday pay, his P45 and so on, but the adjudicators still ruled that he would benefit from the strike.
Attitudes such as this have ensured that 85 per cent of those who came out on strike are still out on strike. Whatever the headlines in the papers, whatever Ministers say about 7,000 or 5,000 going back, in percentage terms, 85 per cent. of those who came out have not gone back. If anything has caused that, it is the hard-hearted attitude of those trying to force people back. The £16 change last week was a major error by the Government. People were beginning to go back to work, but their opinion was hardened by this change. They said that they would not have their noses rubbed in it and would not be forced out, and decided to stay out last week. The Government dropped a clanger with this £16, and I think that they are already regretting it.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not extraordinary


that we had a passionate demonstration late the other night, a passionate request for a statement and for this debate, passionate speeches from Labour Members about the subject, but after all that only 20 of them are here for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Eric Forth: I start by taking this opportunity to answer some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made a fraudulent speech—that is, one about fraud, as he said. He made several points upon which we could not question him because he felt unable to give way. First, he made the direct accusation that people who had been arrested were being held on bail for an unnaturally long time to keep them out of the action on the picket line. He and the House must know that the Government have provided more magistrates to expedite the hearing of cases of those arrested.
Another fraudulent point was the repeated accusation about the denial of freedom of speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) has already made my point by saying that it was at the Opposition's request that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to come to the House late at night to make a statement. The opportunity to make that statement was denied, and that outrageous behaviour not only denied my right hon. Friend freedom of speech, but denied right hon. and hon. Labour Members the freedom to question him.
Labour Members scored their usual own goal when they did that, because the publicity has not been for the merits or demerits of this case, but for their outrageous behaviour.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Forth: The next piece of fradulence perpetrated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was his ridiculous suggestion that the violence on the picket line is being caused by the police. I and my colleagues are still unsure why it is that when, in some places, there are several thousand pickets massing to persuade a handful of miners not to go to work, and thousands are armed, often with missiles and other implements, the police are expected not to intervene to protect the small minority of workers who want to go back to work.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, particularly as a Labour councillor in my constituency, who was not even standing on the picket line, but was there as an observer of the pickets last Tuesday, was pulled off a wall by the police and dragged along the floor. His face was badly bruised, his nose was injured, and his wife, who went over to help him, was kicked in the stomach by the police. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn such behaviour equally? He is fond of condemning the pickets, but violence should be condemned wherever it arises.

Mr. Forth: Yes, I would unhesitatingly condemn any such incident as and when it occurred, but the hon. Lady must accept that that incident, if it happened, would not have occurred had there not been excessively large

numbers of pickets which required a large police presence. This is the point which Conservative Members wish to emphasise over and over again. Nobody has any objection to the presence of six pickets seeking peacefully to persuade their colleagues not to go to work. That has always been accepted by Conservative Members. We defend the rights of individuals to withhold and withdraw their labour, and the right of other individuals peacefully to persuade others. However, we will always condemn activities such as those which we have had to witness, which have given rise to incidents such as that which the hon. Lady has described.

Mr. John Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a laid down procedure for anybody who wishes to instigate complaints against the police force? That is laid down in statute and any member of the public can take advantage of it, and can even get legal aid to do so. Should there not also be a complaints procedure against the NUM and its intimidation, so that complaints about its members can be investigated as well?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is right. Whereas the public have the right to make complaints about the police, and have those complaints dealt with, I am not certain where those who have complaints against the activities that we have seen on the picket line can go to complain. There is not an appeals procedure within the NUM for its members to complain about their colleagues' activities, and I am sure that Labour Members will wish to put that right.
There is a problem behind this most interesting debate. Every Conservative Member defends the right of individuals to withhold their labour within the properly constituted context, and we have never sought to deny that. It is an absolute freedom which has always been guaranteed within our constitution and by this Government. However, we cannot support the concept of requiring the taxpayer to fund striking activity.
Many people would question why it is that they as taxpayers are being required to give support and succour to people who have withdrawn their labour. Many would ask what the role of trade unions is in this context. Trade unions can hold a ballot and decide to withhold labour, and trade unions are free, as they always have been, to raise and accumulate funds for the benefit of their members. If these funds are not to be used to help the legitimate ends of the strike, for what will they be used?
During today's debate we have heard repeated allegations from the Opposition that in no way could it be expected that the vast resources of the NUM should be used to help the NUM's own members who are in diffculty. Those allegations sit ill with the examples that we see of the NUM trawling the world for money wherever it can be found and of secret movements of funds through Irish banks to American banks in an attempt to avoid the law. How does the NUM see fit to take its members' money away from this country, where it could help its members who are in difficulty?

Mr. Nellist: Does the hon. Gentleman support his Government who, in easing exchange controls three or four years ago, allow £32 million—four times the total assets of the NUM—to leave the country every day and to trawl the world looking for higher profits on the basis of the super-exploitation of workers in Asia and Africa?


When the hon. Gentleman talks about money going round the world, why does he not also talk about the Prime Minister, her son, Oman and £300 million?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I thought that he was amongst those who were constantly asking us to put our funds into under-developed countries. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticise Western capitalism for seeking to provide employment for people of the under-developed countries and then expect the contrary to apply. It is a perfect example of the doublethink and doublespeak that we have had to put up with throughout today's debate.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that the Government were being provocative. He sought to imply that somehow the Government were taking a provocative and deliberate action at a particularly sensitive time. One of my colleagues asked whether this implied that what in any event had happened every year for the past four or five years and therefore was fully to have been anticipated should not have taken place this year simply because the miners were on strike. If that is the implication, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Bearing in mind that we are dealing not just with benefits for miners on strike, but with benefits for anyone who may withhold his labour, it is a dangerous and seductive argument to suggest that somehow the Government should not have taken this action, in deference to striking miners. That is a peculiar argument. It suggests that the Government should intervene in a process which has been followed for the past four or five years without argument and give special treatment to striking miners. That is an odd request for anyone to make in the current circumstances.
When we consider the hardship caused throughout society, not just to the strikers and their families, but to many other people who are in the process of losing their jobs because of the miners' strike, it sits ill with the Opposition to make accusations of the sort that they have attempted to make today and have failed to make stick with any credibility.
I should much prefer to see the Opposition coming forward with positive, credible and reasonable suggestions about how the Government should act in these cases, instead of making carping and stupid comments which will help no one and will be positively counter-productive. If they could move to a more positive and helpful attitude, the country would thank the Opposition for it.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) talked about positive suggestions to resolve the current dispute in the coal mining industry. I am tempted to remind him that it is about jobs. To my certain knowledge the hon. Gentleman holds at least two jobs. Perhaps he should consider releasing one of them to someone who is without a job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which two?"] I understand that the hon. Gentleman is also a Member of the European Assembly.

Mr. Forth: Wrong again.

Mr. Barron: Then perhaps we should have had this debate earlier in the year.
No matter what has been said by the Secretary of State and by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends today, no

one can get away from the fact that because of the Government's decision the vast majority of miners' families receiving supplementary benefit will receive less in real terms this week than they did last week. Anyone who tries to hide from that is denying fact. The deemed payment rising from £15 to £16 cannot be seen as anything more than a callous attack on the wives and children of striking miners.
The increase is made under the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. That is one of the most despicable and pernicious pieces of legislation that even this Government have ever dared put through the House of Commons. It exists purposely to try to defeat strikes, but even more it is an attack on thousands of people. Government supporters echo their belief in the right of any worker to go on strike, and then they proceed to attack anyone daring to take strike action, and not just with this deemed payment provision.
Every week at my surgery I have bigger and bigger queues of people who are suffering under the supplementary benefits legislation and the other provisions of the 1980 Act. Only this week a constituent of mine with four very young children discovered that her washing machine had broken down. She applied for an urgent needs payment so that she could wash bedding and nappies for her family. She was told that as a consequence of the legislation passed in 1980 there was no urgent needs payment for the repair of a washing machine because her husband was on strike. If he had been in prison his wife would never have been at my surgery asking me to try to get her money from the DHSS.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Did the hon. Gentleman ask his constituent whether her husband had inquired from the NUM if any of the money in the suitcases was available to repair the washing machine?

Mr. Barron: As I understand it, the suitcases are now in the hands of the judiciary, and I shall be dealing with that matter later.
This morning I received a letter from the local office of the DHSS. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, because I should like to have read it to him as well. It concerns a constituent of mine, a Mr. M., who works at Kiveton Park colliery. He is a diabetic. He has asked for nothing from the state for himself because up to 5 October 1984 he lived on his wife's earnings. He was then given £6 a week because his wife's earnings were not very big. He asked for some special dietary help to pay for the food that his diabetic condition made necessary. The letter reads:
I am sorry that I am not able to be more helpful but I trust that this information will assist you in advising your constituent.
Dietary needs beyond a certain level are not met for people who are deemed to be on strike.
I repeat that I believe that, the legislation passed by this House in 1980 is one of the most pernicious and filthy laws that could ever be passed by any Government.
Those are only two of dozens of people who are in need of help but cannot get it because they are involved or deemed to be involved in a trade union dispute.
Conservative Members say that this measure is economic and that the legislation has existed for four years. But let me go back to an article in The Economist in 1978 on a Conservative party policy group report on nationalised industries. Its author was the Secretary of


State for Transport—now a member of the Cabinet. The article talks of industrial disputes and how a Conservative Government would handle them and says:
The group believes that the greatest deterrent to any strike would be 'to cut off the money supply to the strikers, and make the unions finance them'.
That Conservative party policy document was leaked to The Economist in 1978.
That is what the Government have been trying to do. They have been prepared to stop dietary allowances and unemployment benefits to retired miners who agreed before the strike to retire. They have been prepared to use it to take £15—now £16—a week off miners' wives and their families. They have also been prepared to stop the urgent needs allowance and many other things.
How can the NUM pay any money? Had it done so, the Minister knows that after a few weeks of the strike the union would have been bankrupt. But how can it pay that money now when its funds have been sequestrated by Britain's judges? How can the north Derbyshire area of the NUM pay any money after a judgment in the High Court on 6 November this year by Mr. Justice Vinelott that it cannot use its funds to finance the strike in any way? The Conservative party is baying about the need for the NUM to pay its members, and it smacks of a conspiracy.
The uprating will be seen by the nation as an attack on the wives and the families of miners who are on strike and on others whom the Conservative party says have a right to strike. Yet as soon as that right is asserted the Conservative party attacks them in one of the most terrible manners possible.
The Prime Minister's amendment says that the NCB has negotiated with NACODS and come to a good agreement. That was put in great doubt at Question Time today when compulsory redundancies became an area of disagreement. When compulsory redundancies were mentioned two months ago in the House there was no qualification as there was from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today. It now looks as though part of the agreement with NACODS only a few weeks ago is dodgy.
The amendment condemns the NUM for its failure to meet its obligations to its members. If the union had met its obligations to its members it would have been bankrupt within two or three weeks. People who have lost limbs working for the NCB may be fighting in the High Court now. Money is needed for such people to fight for rightful compensation. To deny that would be irresponsible and the NUM must ensure that it has funds to fight on behalf of its members in such circumstances. If the NUM had become bankrupt after four weeks, would the Government be here today saying that the NUM should meet its obligations to miners' families?
The document leaked to The Economist in 1978 had other things to say about what the Conservative party proposed to do in government. The amendment talks about the intransigence of the NUM over the past nine months and the fact that it will not move on this strike. That is not true. The NUM has moved in relation to closures during the dispute. The Conservative party's policy group report on the nationalised industries, scribed by the Secretary of State for Transport, said:
The group believes that the most likely battleground will be the coal industry.
The Labour party is often charged with using emotive language such as "battleground". The article continued

They would like a Thatcher government to: (a) build up maximum coal stocks, particularly at the power stations; (b) make contingency plans for the import of coal; (c) encourage the recruitment of non-union lorry drivers by haulage companies to help move coal where necessary; (d) introduce dual coal/oil firing in all power stations as quickly as possible.
The last paragraph of the article says:
There should be a large, mobile squad of police equipped and prepared to uphold the law against violent picketing. 'Good non-union drivers' should be recruited to cross picket lines with police protection.
What I have said today is the truth behind the miners' dispute. We have a chance to bring the matter up again later but it is important that the truth behind the dispute, behind the pernicious legislation put on the statute book by the Government in 1980, and behind the Government's action today in attacking the wives and children of miners, should be put firmly on record so that our children can say that they will never again have a Government in power who abuse their position as this Government are doing.

Mr. Roger Sims: It is sometimes assumed that my constituents are well-heeled citizens living in the leafy suburbs. Some of them are senior people in well-paid positions in commerce, industry and government, but a large number of them are perfectly normal, reasonable, moderate people, living on moderate salaries, with a range of jobs, and many of them are in receipt of small pensions. They are paying income tax, which is being spent by the Government in a wide variety of ways for which the House is responsible. Many millions of pounds are paid out to those who qualify for supplementary benefits. It is as well to remind ourselves that, since the miners' strike began, £23 million of taxpayers' money has been spent to pay supplementary benefit to strikers' families.
I and my constituents support the right of anybody to strike and to withdraw his labour, but I and my constituents think that it is entirely reasonable that when people do so the union should pay strike pay from its funds. My constituents support the law which assumes that when supplementary benefit is provided, an amount of strike pay has been paid. That applies in any industrial dispute, not simply the one that is the main topic of our discussion today.
In this dispute the NUM has chosen not to pay strike pay. We have not yet heard a word of justification as to why it has not spent a penny of its funds on strike pay. We know that the NUM has about £80 million in assets from which it could pay strike pay, but it did not pay right from the beginning. The court order has been mentioned, but if from the beginning the union had made it clear that it would pay strike pay and had put funds aside to meet those demands, the court would have acted differently in the circumstances, which in any case arose from the action of the miners' leaders. The court action was entirely avoidable.
I wonder why people at home and abroad are being gulled into sending food parcels to miners. Why are foreign Governments being invited to send money to socalled starving miners who have £80 million of assets available to them if they care to use them?
The NUM has been paying those who are willing to stand on the picket lines. We all know the result of that. We have seen nightly on television what has been happening on the picket lines. My understanding of a


picket is someone who is there peacefully to persuade others not to work. It does not need 6,000 pickets to prevent six people from going to work.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there are only six pickets on a picket line they should be allowed to speak to the people who are going into work?

Mr. Sims: I certainly accept that if there are only six pickets it is reasonable that those seeking to go to work should be given the opportunity to hear what the pickets wish to say and to turn back or go in to work, as they wish. That is what pickets are supposed to do. It does not need 6,000 pickets to persuade half a dozen people not to go to work. The scenes that we have seen every day are not Tory scare stories. We have seen those scenes in the newspapers and on television every night. It is mob rule.
Perhaps the saddest feature of the past week is that the mob rule that we have seen on the picket lines has reached the Chamber. Perhaps the scenes that we saw here on Wednesday were not that surprising. After all, we know the attitude of the Militant Tendency to Parliament.
I note how few of those who sought to bring Parliament to a halt last week are present for the debate. A few of the same faces are here, but those who seem willing to pack the Floor to stop debate seem less willing to take part in a debate. Perhaps that demonstrates their contempt for Parliament.
I should like to have heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) a denunciation of, or at least a dissociation from, the scenes in the Chamber on Wednesday. We have not heard that, so we must assume that, by acquiescence, the leadership of the official Opposition accepts what went on.
No doubt I shall be reminded of the so-called Mace incident. I was in the House at that time and I recall clearly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) took the earliest opportunity to apologise to Mr. Speaker and to the House for what he had done. I look forward to hearing a similar apology from the hon. Members who took part in Wednesday's demonstration, which did not merely interrupt Parliament, but brought our proceedings to a halt.
The pickets have been paid, but the union has not been paying its members who are on strike. References have been made to starving the miners back to work and to the wives and children of miners being deprived. Who is doing the starving? Who is doing the depriving? Is it the Department of Health and Social Security? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] £23 million? Depriving?

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sims: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the NUM which is doing the starving and the depriving.

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sims: No. I wish to draw my remarks to a close and to give my hon. Friends an opportunity to speak. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity. He does not usually miss it.
The Opposition motion asks, in effect, for £16 more to be paid to the family of every striker. No doubt we shall be told that politics is the language of priorities. I am a strong supporter of the Government, but I do not always see eye to eye with them. Indeed, I felt unable to support the Government on Thursday, when I abstained on the vote

on cuts in the BBC external service, the British Council and overseas aid. Perhaps that shows where my priorities lie.
I will not be a party to asking my constituents to pay even more benefits to the families of striking miners. The strike is unnecessary and has been called by a union which has ample assets, but is unwilling to use them for its members.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put the case exceedingly well and we are all glad that he had the opportunity to deploy that case.
When the Government introduced the 1980 Act, they were a mean and vicious Government and the longer that they have been in power, the more mean and vicious they have become. Ministers and their supporters are equally mean and vicious towards anyone who dares to go on strike.
I have heard Conservative Members say how much they favour the principle of working people withdrawing their labour, but they go on to say how much they also support money being taken from the wives and families of strikers, whether or not those workers are in a union—the Act says nothing about unions paying strike money.
Many workers who have never been members of a trade union have withdrawn their labour because they felt that there was nothing else that they could do. Under the Act, they are deemed to have paid £16 a week to their families, even though they may not have a penny. That means that wives and children are being acted against by this mean and vicious Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who was a miner before becoming an hon. Member, admirably put the case for the miners. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the Opposition spokesman on energy, and I were shop-floor workers, we were involved in many industrial disputes and we remember that under Labour Governments and even under the Macmillan Government it was recognised that although the striker never got a penny, his wife and family received the same benefits as anyone else in deprived circumstances. This vicious and mean Government brought in the legislation to deprive working people's families of those benefits. It is an absolute disgrace.
Conservative Members seem to be worried about the fact that I and some of my hon. Friends stood in front of the Mace last week. I make no apologies for that. It was not an act of violence. Conservative Members and newspapers which have dared to suggest that there was violence are lying. They are liars to suggest that there was violence. I remember violence in the House. I recall when a man who is now Secretary of State for Defence picked up the Mace, waved it round his head and began to charge at the Opposition Benches. That was a real act of violence. I am not surprised that he apologised the next day. So he should have done.
What we did was something that I saw Dame Irene Ward do. The hon. Lady walked from the Back Bench and stood in front of the Mace. She was thrown out of the House. She took that action because she felt so strongly about an issue.
What about the history of such action? F. E. Smith,—a predecessor of mine from Walton, where the people


have guts — and his Conservative opponents to the Government stopped Asquith from speaking for half an hour. We did nothing like that. It is a lie to suggest that we acted violently. What we did was to say to the Government that after their final act against the miners and their families, "enough is enough". For years we have had to tolerate this legislation. For years we have seen how it has operated against workers and their families. The time came when we decided that we had to make an extra demonstration. It was not just a question of discussion; we had to state where we stood and, if need be, accept the consequences of our action. None of us thought that the House would be suspended. We were prepared to be suspended ourselves. That is the truth and I put it on the record.

Mr. Fowler: Does the hon. Gentleman also defend his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) in tearing my statement from my hands and tearing it in half? Does he defend that?

Mr. Heffer: In the words of Barbara Castle on television the other day, I can say only, "Poor dear."
The truth is that the Government are determined to try to starve the miners back to work. They have intervened against the miners from the word go. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made valiant efforts to achieve a settlement round the table, but at each stage the Government have failed to support any attempt at a settlement. Instead, they have come out against any settlement and have done everything they can to stop it. That is the reality and the Government's last move is a deliberate attempt to drive the miners back to work.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that the miners will not so easily go back to work. We should remember that Lord Stockton said in the House of Lords that we are talking about special people. These are working people who do a job that no Government Members, or most Opposition Members, would do. I should not want to go down into the bowels of the earth every day to earn a living. I have had to work on top of buildings, but that is a damned sight easier than working under the ground. Whatever the miners get they are entitled to it. Today they are being driven back, as they were in 1926 by a previous Tory Government who tried to break the power and influence of the miners because they are at the forefront of the working class. They are struggling for decent working conditions, decent wages and the maintenance of the trade union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was 100 per cent. right when he said that the Government's strategy is to create a number of profitable areas in the minefields and to hand them over to private enterprise. That is the Government's strategy. That is what they are trying to do. They are doing that in other spheres.
We all deplore the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in hospital because of the IRA bombing, but he told us that once. He was told by his hon. Friends not to say it because it was not right, but the Government are endeavouring to do that.
The Government have waged the class war; our people have not. From the word go the Government, with their massive police presence, have waged the class war. What about the violence described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? I never hear

people talking about the violence used by the police against ordinary people and against those who are not even involved in the dispute. Whether the Government like it or not, they will not be able to destroy the trade unions or the miners. They will not be able to destroy our working class solidarity because it is ours. We got it; we built all our achievements and advances on the basis of it. No matter how the Government try we shall win because history is on our side.

Mr. John Powley: Hon. Members may think that the fair green fields of Norwich and Norfolk are a long way from the minefields. So they are. However, my constituents have to accept the responsibilities for many of the actions in the mines and in the dispute, and they do not like the consequences.
I say this more in sorrow than with any other emotion, but the actions in the House last Wednesday will result in the Conservative party receiving public support. Those who are involved in the dispute will lose public support because the public does not like the type of action that we witnessed on Wednesday.
Whether it was right or wrong for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement is not the concern of the majority. People are worried because Parliament was disrupted. People have an inherent dislike of such disruptive action. That is a fact of life, and the Opposition would do well to take note of it.
Much has been said about the rights of strikers. Something else goes with rights — responsibility. The two are synonymous. They always have been and always will be. We cannot get away from that. We all have rights, but we also have responsibilities. A miner has responsibilities to his family, and there is no doubt about that. He has to feed and clothe and also to provide accommodation for his family. Those are prime responsibilities. No miner worth his salt can absolve himself from those responsibilities. However, a miner has a right to strike. When a member of the National Union of Mineworkers exercises his right to go on strike, he must weigh his responsibilities and the consequences that will flow from his action of going on strike. No one should think that he can take that action and not have to accept the consequences and responsibilities that go with it. If a worker decides to go on strike—

Mrs. Clwyd: rose—

Mr. Powley: No, I shall not give way. I tried to intervene during the speeches of a number of Labour Members and was denied the opportunity to do so. Time is limited and I shall not give way.
If a miner goes on strike, he must accept that he will receive a much lower income, if any income at all. He must know that his family will suffer and that it will not have the same standard of living that it enjoyed before he went on strike. If he chooses to go on strike, he cannot at the same time absolve himself from all his family responsibilities and expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Mr. Robert Litherland: rose—

Mr. Powley: No, I shall not give way.
Labour Members have talked about redundancies, but redundancy payments act as a cushion. That is a responsibility of the state, and one which it rightly accepts.


I am talking about someone who decides of his own free will to go on strike in furtherance of an industrial dispute, thereby denying himself the opportunities that would otherwise be his.
If a man decides to go on strike, that is his priority. In taking that decision, he decides that the income from his employment is not his priority. I do not accept that that is the right choice, but it is one that a striker makes. He is not coerced into making that decision. There has been intimidation, but generally no one will coerce a man into going on strike. That means that the decision is made of his own free will. He will have said to himself, "I prefer to go on strike than to maintain my family's standard of living. I prefer to go on strike than to feed and clothe my family and to continue to provide the members of my family with the benefits I have provided hitherto."

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Powley: I shall not give way.
A miner who decides to go on strike must not expect the state to prop up his family and provide all the benefits that he has provided for it. The provision of those benefits is the responsibility of the individual who chooses to take strike action and not that of the state. Some of my constituents have told me, "I choose to work and to devote my resources to providing for my family. I work hard and accept overtime when it is available. Why should I prop up those who, through their own choice, have decided to embark on an industrial dispute and, in consequence, not to support their families?" Many of my constituents find that action abhorrent to their way of thinking.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Powley: No, I shall not give way. I explained that I would not give way, and I will not give way.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman does not dare to give way.

Mr. Powley: It ill becomes anyone to say that I dare not do something. Those who know me know that I will do what I choose to do, irrespective of a dare. I shall not fall into the silly trap that Labour Members try to set.
Labour Members love to suggest that Conservative Members have not had the experience that they claim to have. They suggest that all Conservative Members attended public schools and were born with silver spoons in their mouths. I am sure that you know it all, Mr. Speaker. I have a little story to tell Labour Members. Some of us may have had rather more experience—

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the terms of the motion do not lend themselves to the telling of stories. Will you tell this person, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), to keep to the subject under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the story of the hon. Member for Norwich. South (Mr. Powley) relates to the coal mining dispute.

Mr. Powley: It is related to the dispute, Mr. Speaker.
I was brought up in a working class family. My father was a shop steward for most of his life. It was his proud boast that he never needed to call his members out on strike in furtherance of an industrial dispute. That shows that the image that Labour Members present of Conservative Members is false.
I deplore the doublespeak that we have heard today and on so many other occasions. The cry goes up so often from Labour Members that they have sympathy for the striker, his family and his babies. However, they support industrial disputes that hit strikers' wives and their children and babies, the sick and the old. They do so time after time. Their actions and words amount to hypocrisy.
It is said that the Government have mounted a vicious attack on the miners. I was successful in the 1983 general election, and I admit that I was not successful in 1979. However, the Conservative party stated clearly during both elections—I supported it—that the unions should take an increasing share of responsibility for their actions. That was made abundantly clear during both elections. The Conservative party won the 1979 election and had a fairly comfortable majority in this place. It won the 1983 election and secured an overwhelming majority. It is clear that the Conservative party's policy is supported by the majority of the public. Indeed, some would say that the Government have not gone far enough. The general public support the policy that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. They believe that those who want to perpetrate certain actions should accept the consequences and responsibilities that go with them.

Mr. Gordon Brown: When the suffering of mothers and children is the issue, this debate has shown already that the order which has been produced before the House is not only unnecessary but vindictive, provocative and discriminatory. The disgrace and shame is obvious from the despicable manner of the order's presentation, only four days before its implementation. Under pressure, the Secretary of State has explained that the order is not automatic and was avoidable. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that although he issued an order, he could have issued regulations. If he felt that he would never issue regulations, why is the provision for regulations contained in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980? This Government have already done what no other Government have done in deducting money from the wives and children of miners. How much more hardship and suffering must they cause before they will even consider putting before the House regulations instead of an order?
Are the Government surprised at the frustration, anger and bitterness in mining communities, when they have published an order the effect of which is to deduct £1 from miners' families, and kept quiet, to the point of avoiding parliamentary answers, about the £750,000 they promised to pay Mr. Ian MacGregor's American firm as a bonus for his activities in Britain? When miners receive nothing from the Department of Health and Social Security, Ministers and other Conservative Members have argued that somehow the Government have the right to wash their hands of any responsibility for mothers and children and to pass the burden on to a trade union. The Government say that they should represent and cater for the needs of the nation, but that when it suits them, they should be able to take away the benefits that should be payable to some parts of the nation.
I remind Conservative Members that it was the Prime Minister who said that there was a safety net below which no one in this country should be allowed to fall. Indeed, the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Social Services said:


we will ensure that…the safety net below which none shall fall is maintained intact".—[Offical Report, 15 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1033.]
The present Foreign Secretary, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
any civilised society should provide a safety net below which a poor person's standard of living should not fall."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1458.]
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported as having said:
We want a decent safety net of social security payments for the needy. We shall not change that.
What sort of safety net do we have when the Government have transferred the conduct of industrial relations from conciliation to the courts of law and the police cells and have transferred the responsibility for the relief of poverty from the social security office to the soup kitchen? What is the national minimum below which no one should fall? We know that the minimum daily allowance for one meal a day provided by the DHSS is £1.35. Yet a miner's wife is expected to live and meet all her household needs—food, heating and clothing—on only 92p a day, which is only two-thirds of that provision.
What is the poverty line above which all people are supposed to be? It is a measure of the Government's retribution against the strikers and their families that they do not just deduct £16 from the wives and children of miners, but give them £20 a week less than they pay to households of four where the father is in goal. The Government give miners' families £30 a week less than they give to a family where the father has walked out. The Government give a miner's family of four £40 a week less than if the breadwinner were unemployed instead of fighting for his job.
On top of that, during this strike, the Government have denied miners' families in my constituency and in other constituencies help with heating costs, the full rate of maternity allowance and even funeral costs, until the Minister was forced by public pressure to change his mind. Conservative Members should recall that even the Conservative Government of 1926 were so worried about the destitution that they had created in mining communities that they ordered the local authorities to break the law to alleviate at least some of the suffering that they had created. Now, in 1984, this Conservative Government are so concerned to create destitution and maximise suffering that, month by month—and almost week by week—new regulations, orders and instructions have been issued by the DHSS to make already impoverished families subject to even greater misery and destitution.
In March, when a child in a family of four from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was run over and killed in a car accident, the Department of Health and Social Security denied help with the funeral costs and tried to force a pauper's funeral on that family. Only public pressure made the Minister change his mind and agree to do something he has not yet done—change the law.
In April, the Government tried, through the DHSS's adjudication officers, to prevent family income supplement being paid to the working wives of miners. Despite the fact that 16 tribunals have ruled against the Government, they are still opposing the case.
In May, the Government tried to rule against local authorities trying to relieve destitution in mining communities. Six months later, during which the Government have tried to prevent local authorities giving any help, they have had to admit that, in trying to delay the final appeal before the commissioner, they do not have sufficient legal evidence to back up their case.
In July, the Minister introduced new regulations to deduct from miners' social security benefits even the cost of soup or of logs paid for by charities and voluntary organisations.
Today, we have heard of the deduction of £1 from miners' families. What should have been a statement two months ago came as a written answer only last week.
At every point during this strike the Government have had a choice. When Ministers should have shown compassion to the wives and children of miners, they have chosen vindictive cuts. When they should have relieved suffering, they have increased it. When they should have prevented destitution, they have sought to worsen it. When they should have mitigated hardship, they have sought, for the narrowest of ideological reasons, to intensify it.

Mr. Patrick Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I am just finishing.
The Government may win the vote tonight, but on this issue, as on many issues affecting the benefits and rights of ordinary people, they have lost all moral authority to govern.

Mr. Roger King: This dispute has now gone on for nearly eight months—eight months of lack of negotiation by the leader of the NUM. It is small wonder that after eight months of him and his gang not getting a successful outcome, the points made in this debate should be about the moral issue. This afternoon we have had paraded in front of us the moral issue of starving children, poor wives, lack of shoes, food and so on. Of course, after eight months of being on strike, miners are hardly likely to be at the height of affluence. This is a two-sided moral issue. The trade unions were set up to organise themselves to obtain better working conditions and wages and to take on recalcitrant employers who were determined to hold on to what they had. The trade unions rightly organised their finances so that they could support their members in all forms of industrial action. Eventually, over the decades, the country had had enough suffering.
In the 1970s there was the winter of discontent and all the industrial relations problems that were heaped upon us during the period of the previous Labour Government. The Comservative party platform was, "Yes, we want accountability for what people do and that accountability embraces the responsibility of trade unions when they take industrial action." We said that the trade unions should pay for or make a contribution to the issues on which they embarked. The Opposition have talked about the problems confronting 120,000 mineworkers, but what about our responsibilities towards the remaining 55 million people who have to pick up the bill for the NUM's bad judgment?
We have heard a lot about solidarity. What is meant by solidarity? What other support does the NUM have? Is it the solidarity of lorry drivers trundling coal to the power


stations? Is it the solidarity of the railwaymen who are continuing to deliver coal? Is it the solidarity of the power workers, when there has been not one power dispute since this action started and not one likely to happen? Is it like solidarity of the NUM, a growing number of whose members are going back to work day by day, and rightly so?

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Government have starved them back to work.

Mr. King: They may well have been starved back, but no one else has got them anything. Mr. Scargill has given them nothing but rhetoric, blunder and promises of money from Russia and Colonel Gaddafi, while he is bundling it out of the country to Ireland and America. The only money that Mr. Scargill promises is for those on the picket line. People can stand there and draw their picket money. What does Arthur Scargill say to those who are suffering genuine hardship? We have heard of a few of those. Nothing. He blames everything on the NCB and the Government.
Where has the money gone that has been collected in the streets? Who has audited it? Who has been accountable for it? We can hardly travel down a street without someone offering a bucket for us to drop our loose change into. What happens to that money? [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman has not dropped his loose change in."] No. I shall not give money to that cause when other causes, such as Ethiopia and children in need, are being collected for in the same street. The money is being used to foment this industrial dispute. We have seen on television what that has led to.
The NUM executive has carried on this industrial dispute, and it does not give a damn for its union members. If it did, it would have held a ballot. The result of that ballot may well have been a complete stoppage and the dispute would have been over within a matter of weeks. The executive tried to get its own way without carrying out its democratic duties, according to its rule book, and that has led to the hardship that we now see.
As Christmas draws near there will be the problems of children not having food, presents, and so on. Our hearts will be twanged away at like mad by Opposition Members reminding us that for many people Christmas will not come this year. The answer to that is simple. The miners have only to accept the NCB's offer and take the money that is on the table. Any miner who returns to work now will receive £600 in his pocket before Christmas. That will provide shoes, clothes and Christmas presents that the children want and deserve.
Our appeal to the miners must be for them to return to work, to get the pits working again, and take up the excellent offer negotiated by ACAS. Some of us believe that that offer is rather too much—we are not pleased about that—and that the NCB would be giving too much away. If NACODS can accept the offer, why the NUM cannot remains a mystery.
What about the small business man? If the full entitlement had been paid without discounting £15 or £16, how much would it have cost the country? How many small businesses, which have a job to balance their books, would have gone to the wall as a result of no coal and no electricity and all the problems that would have ensued? Hundreds of thousands of other people would have been badly hurt. The miners should accept the offer that is on the table and return to work. They would then draw their

money and that would solve many of their and their families' problems. Miners should remember that their responsibility is not to the union or to their colleagues, but, first and foremost, to their families.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I must respond to one point made from the Conservative Benches in reply to my intervention earlier. It was on the subject of violence. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) suggested that the one person about whom I spoke could obtain some satisfaction by reporting the act of violence committed against him and his wife to the police.
I do not apologise for repeating this point. During the dispute we have not heard sufficient about the violence perpetuated against bystanders who are taking non-violent action on picket lines. We have tonight heard a great deal from the Conservative Benches about violence. My constituent, a Labour councillor, was a bystander on a picket line last Tuesday. He was standing on a wall watching what happened. He saw a group of police beat up a constituency lodge chairman. He called to the police to stop. He was pulled off the wall and dragged to the floor. His face was grazed and his knees were bruised. When his wife went over to intervene, she was hit in the stomach. When he told the senior policeman on duty that he was going to report the incident to the police, he was told that he was under arrest. That is what happens when someone wishes to report an incident to the police.
My constituent said that in that case he would drop his complaint, but he went to the police station and reported the incident. He returned to the picket line the next day and saw the same police officers on the same picket line. When he went to the senior police officer on duty he was told that they had not been removed from the picket line because they had been told what to do by the police commander.
Such incidents have rarely been talked about, but, make no mistake, they take place. They are violent actions against people who are not taking part in the picket, but we hear nothing about them in the press or from the Government.
The increases made in the order are, apparently, because of the increase in inflation. Families—it is worth repeating this—will be worse off in real terms as a result of the £1 deduction. Let me give two examples. In 1979, a couple who were both on strike could claim from the DHSS an urgent needs payment of £24. In 1984, a couple, with one person on strike and with two children under 10, receive £24·75. That is a rise of 75p in five years. What sort of justice and welfare is that?
During the strike, thousands of people have become involved in creating alternative welfare systems. A large part has been played by women. Women have always played an important, but under-estimated, role in mining life, but never more so than during this strike. Women are hurt much more than men in a dispute. It is the women who have to take charge of the household and take care of the children to ensure that they are fed.
The women in my constituency decided that if everyone could have one hot meal a day they could survive and would not be starved back to work. In our community we have 13 strike feeding committees. The women from the kitchens meet regularly to discuss their experiences and keep themselves together. Letters of support are read out. Some women read their poems. They keep a note of the best and the worst that happens. The women say that they


sometimes have a bit of a cry. The pressure on them is terrific and it is hard work, but they also have some laughs. It cannot be denied that the strike has involved enormous hardship.
Living without a wage from the pits, men have received no social security payments, and their families were assumed to be in receipt of—now £16— strike pay. Miners and their families have been forced to live off friends, sacks of potatoes and the odd £10 from relatives. They are having to cash their insurance policies, raise second mortgages, sell their cars and their furniture, and live off tick. But the determination to see it through is there, despite all the hardship. Despite all the hardship, all the worry and all the doing without, people are not broken in body or in spirit. If anything, the opposite is true.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Rarely can there have been a debate which was so much heralded and which has misfired as badly as the debate in the past three hours. If ever there has been a thin case, deployed in antique rhetoric, we have heard it during the past three hours. Much of the huffing and puffing has been a farce from the beginning.
If the statement that was made last week had been made at the time of the uprating in June, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would have said that we were trying to smuggle it out, hidden by the pension increases and the child benefit increases. If it had been done when the uprating orders were made in July, he would have said that we were rushing it through before the summer recess. If we had done it in August, he would have said that it was a disgrace that it was not done in July. If we had done it in September, he would have said that it was terrible that we had not waited until Parliament came back from the summer recess. If we had done it a month ago, he would have said that we were trying to back up the National Coal Board in the offers and negotiations with which it was then involved. We do not know what the hon. Gentleman would have said last week. When he tried to say it, his own hon. Friends would not let him talk.
In the end, we did more than we have done in any of the past four years. We laid the order and we made a press statement—

Mr. Nellist: One cannot eat statements.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman had a good try last week.

Mr. Nellist: Perhaps the Minister can tell the House the last occasion when he and his wife managed on £6·45 for a week. When was the last time that he went without a meal? Will he tell the House how he expects families to survive for nine months on the pittance that the Government give them? Now another pound has been taken from them. [Interruption.] There is hilarity on the Conservative Benches. Those hon. Members would probably spend £6·45 or more on a round in the Bars downstairs. They do not give a damn about people. The Minister stands there making a mockery of people who are fighting for their jobs.

Mr. Newton: If I may say so, one does not have to work very hard to make a mockery of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nellist: What I have said is the truth.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will stop behaving like the parliamentary equivalent of a half brick, I shall get on with my speech.
In the past three hours we have heard a great deal about how vindictive and provocative the Government have been. The same things would have been said whenever the announcement was made, despite the fact that it was automatic. We have heard those remarks against the background of 1·25 million payments of supplementary benefit over the period concerned, totalling £23 million. That is without even taking account of payments of housing benefit. On this very day, 30,000 dependants of miners on strike are receiving an increase in the benefit that is paid to them. Is that vindictive and provocative? There are strikers in many other parts of the world who would think that our strikers are doing very well.
Where a man, for whatever reason, chooses to deprive himself of the means to support his dependants, whether of his own volition of because his union asks him or tells him to, it is not vindictive or provocative to expect either that man or his union to make some provision for his needs, and not to expect the rest of the community to pick up the whole of the bill. That is a simple, common-sense proposition.
When I am told that it is provocative that the Government allowed the law to take its course today, I ask myself: how provocative would it have been to the miners who have worked throughout, and those who have gone back, if we had taken special action to change the law to protect those who are still on strike? This is not deemed strike pay, as has been said several times throughout the debate.
My heart less than bleeds when I am told that the National Union of Mineworkers might have gone bankrupt if it had attempted to pay strike pay. Any other organisation which embarks on a course of action which might bankrupt it has to think about that before it starts. The hon. Member for Oldham, West used a delicate phrase to explain why no strike pay has been paid. He talked about the NUM's money being "otherwise immobilised". It was not immobilised; it moved out of the country so fast that nobody could see it go.
There have been some serious and reasonable contributions to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), and to a number of others. I want it to be clear that there has been no attempt whatever—nor will there be—by Ministers to lean on individual adjudicating officers to bend their decisions either way within the existing rules. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw cannot have it both ways. He complains that different adjudicating officers in different places take different decisions.

Mr. Ashton: Initially.

Mr. Newton: How is it that Ministers, who are able to instruct the adjudicating officers, cannot even bring about consistency? The answer is that we do not tell adjudicating officers what views to form. It is their business to interpret the regulations.
The treatment of girl friends is precisely the same as it would be in any other circumstances with claims for supplementary benefit. The rules on trade disputes make provision for meeting maternity need, if necessary, when


the baby arrives. I tell the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that the rules on gifts and goods in kind have not been changed and are those which apply normally throughout the supplementary benefit system.
I was asked about family income supplement. There was mention of 16 appeals having gone one way. Seventeen appeals have gone the other way. In other words, there is no clear view with regard to FIS. I hope that the position will be resolved shortly by a tribunal of commissioners.
I cannot, in the time available to me, cover all the detailed points which have been made in the debate. For once I found myself having some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—and not just because of the slight sense that he had left the real world. [Interruption.] It was primarily because I think he may be right to complain that the House has not debated the miners' dispute sufficiently, but he would not be right if he tried to blame the Government for that. The reason why the miners' dispute as such has not been debated often is the same reason as that behind today's debate. The Opposition Front Bench do not want to debate the real issues of the day. [Interruption.] They do not dare debate the real issues of the miners' dispute. They will not condemn the violence. They will not condemn the nonsense of the NUM's position. They are all too happy to have those serious issues hidden by the silly smokescreen which has been created by this issue in the past week.
I hope that the House, in proper parliamentary fashion, will do what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) did in another and more physical way last week, and tear up the motion with its vote.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). He has one minute.

Mr. Michael Cocks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 279.

Division No. 17]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Alton, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Carter Jones, Lewis


Benn, Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clay, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Blair, Anthony
Cohen, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Boyes, Roland
Conlan, Bernard





Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Cowans, Harry
McWilliam, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M.
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pendry, Tom


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Penhaligon, David


Ellis, Raymond
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Redmond, M.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, J. W.


Forrester, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rowlands, Ted


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ryman, John


Freud, Clement
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Golding, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gourlay, Harry
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Soley, Clive


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Douglas
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thompson, J. (WansbecK)


John, Brynmor
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Johnston, Russell
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Gordon


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Loyden, Edward



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. John Maxton and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Robin Corbett.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ashby, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hickmet, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Body, Richard
Hind, Kenneth


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bottomley, Peter
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hooson, Tom


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hordern, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cartwright, John
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kennedy, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Corrie, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Couchman, James
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, David


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lester, Jim


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, John


Galley, Roy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Maclean, David John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, John


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Ground, Patrick
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Hannam, John
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Harvey, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moate, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayes, J.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John


Heddle, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)





Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Squire, Robin


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Murphy, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stokes, John


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Osborn, Sir John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Powley, John
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prior, Rt Hon James
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Whitney, Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Silvester, Fred
Woodcock, Michael


Sims, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skeet, T. H. H.
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Spence, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 187.

Division No. 18]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)






Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Key, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Simon
Knox, David


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Ian


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael


Couchman, James
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lillley, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Richard


Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Galley, Roy
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
McQuarrie, Albert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madel, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Mather, Carol


Gregory, Conal
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Mellor, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hannam, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harvey, Robert
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moore, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayes, J.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayward, Robert
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Onslow, Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)





Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Powley, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rathbone, Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spence, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstona)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Whitfield, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stokes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. John Major and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clay, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Barron, Kevin
Craigen, J. M.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Benn, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Blair, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dubs, Alfred


Bruce, Malcolm
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Raymond


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fatchett, Derek






Faulds, Andrew
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Loyden, Edward


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
McCartney, Hugh


Fisher, Mark
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Flannery, Martin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McKelvey, William


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
McWilliam, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Madden, Max


Freud, Clement
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Michie, William


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mikardo, Ian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Nellist, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Brien, William


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howells, Geraint
Park, George


Hoyle, Douglas
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Penhaligon, David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Pike, Peter


John, Brynmor
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Johnston, Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Redmond, M.


Kennedy, Charles
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ryman, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian





Sheerman, Barry
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Tinn, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wainwright, R.


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wallace, James


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wareing, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
White, James


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Gordon


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. John Maxton and


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. Robin Corbett.


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House re-affirms the policy established by the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 that those on strike should be expected to contribute to the cost of maintaining their families; notes that, consequent on the general uprating on social security benefits, all but a tiny minority of strikers receiving supplementary benefit are being paid the same or more benefit, not less; acknowledges that the Government have as in previous years followed the requirements of the Act in uprating the "specified sum" to be deducted from benefit payable for strikers' dependants; acknowledges that the National Coal Board has negotiated constructively in reaching a settlement with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers on the central issues of the dispute; and condemns the failure of the National Union of Mineworkers either to meet its obligations to its members and their families or to move from its total unreasonable position in negotiations.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although this Bill contains provisions on statutory sick pay and on invalidity pension, its heart is concerned with the reform of occupational pension schemes—the biggest reform for a decade. I shall put these proposals into context. There are currently around 90,000 occupational schemes with about 11 million members. Their funds are estimated to be worth well in excess of £100 billion, so we are talking about assets on an enormous scale, held and managed on behalf of half the working population and their families.
Four main principles underlie these reforms. First, my aim is to ensure fairness of treatment for everyone. That means members and ex-members, employers and employees. At the moment the balance is tipped against the employee who changes his job and who leaves a scheme before pension age. The Bill redresses that balance. Secondly, I believe that freedom to choose is an essential right. People are entitled to, and should be given, more say in decisions that vitally affect their own and their families' future. This Bill extends that freedom. Thirdly, I want to ensure that people have enough information to be able to make the right choices and to know that assets invested on their behalf are being properly handled and properly safeguarded. This Bill gives them access to full information.
Fourthly — this is an essential pre-condition of economic growth—I believe that people should be free to move employment to where their skills are most needed and best rewarded. Artificial barriers to job mobility which can arise from the operation of occupational pension schemes must therefore be eliminated. The Bill removes those barriers. These principles are fundamental to my proposals. We have consulted very widely and I have carefully considered all the comments received in reply. There is now a high measure of agreement on what needs to be done.
The central feature of the proposals is the fulfilling of the 1983 manifesto pledge to provide better protection for people who leave a pension scheme before retirement age —the group known somewhat misleadingly as "early leavers". It was a Conservative Government just over 10 years ago who took the first step to protect the interests of the group—in the Social Security Act 1973. Then, for the first time, early leavers over age 26 with five years' qualifying service had their pension rights preserved. Before that they had usually received no more than a refund of their own contributions.
Under the 1973 Act, however, there was no requirement to increase those preserved rights in the period between leaving employment and drawing the pension. At that stage no one anticipated the ruinous inflation rates of

the mid-1970s. Those record inflation rates seriously eroded the real value of preserved pension rights. Most of those who had changed jobs lost out substantially in comparison with their colleagues who stayed in the same job until retirement. Nor was this problem confined to a small minority of the working population. The fact is that up to 90 per cent. of people in pension schemes become "early leavers" at some stage in their careers—whether through involuntary or voluntary change of jobs. A state of affairs therefore in which so many people either lose out, or go in fear of jeopardising their personal security and that of their families should they change jobs, is surely unacceptable.
Legislation and practice must be adjusted to reflect social realities. The point of view was endorsed in 1981 by the Occupational Pensions Board. The board recommended action to redress the balance against "early leavers". The Government's hope was that pension schemes might take the opportunity presented by the board's report to make improvements voluntarily, but by last summer it had become clear that changes were not going to happen without a firm steer from the Government.
Following a special conference on the early leaver issue, which I convened, I set out the Government's proposals in a consultative document last November. Those proposals were broadly in line with the majority recommendation of the Occupational Pensions Board, and they are now embodied in the Bill. The basic effect will be that all those who leave a pension scheme after the Bill comes into force will have their reserved pension rights increased in line with prices or 5 per cent. a year compound, whichever is the less. They will benefit from that revaluation over the whole period between leaving employment and their pension becoming payable.
This protection will apply to all pension rights earned from 1 January 1985 for people who change jobs from the time this part of the Bill becomes law, which I intend should be 1 January 1986. The protection will apply to all benefits provided under scheme rules, except guaranteed minimum pensions which are, of course, already protected.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As a supporter of the Bill and my right hon. Friend, I hope that he will not regard this as a niggling or Committee point. However, he will know that over the last few years many people in industry have received wage increases of a good deal less than 5 per cent., and sometimes not at all. As he puts his mind down the corridor of the future, does he not think that there could be difficulties if people were required to have their pensions uprated by 5 per cent. when those continuing in work in the same firms got very much less than a 5 per cent. uprating in pay?

Mr. Fowler: I recognise that problem. That issue has been put by the engineering employers. I should make it clear that this is 5 per cent. or the increase in prices, whichever is less. That seems to be an equitable way of dealing with the position. In no way do I want to pre-empt debate, but I am sure that the Opposition Front Bench will press us to go further than 5 per cent. Perhaps we may see how the debate develops.
I recognise that all improvements have a cost. The Occupational Pensions Board estimated it as being between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of payroll. In practice,


costs will vary considerably between schemes. The burden will fall least heavily on those who already give increases for early leavers.
How those costs should be met is a matter for scheme trustees and employers to resolve. A variety of options will be open to them. There could be higher contributions from employers or employees, or from both. Non-contributory schemes could become contributory. There could be changes in the schemes' benefit — for example, by taking state benefits fully into account or by changing the way in which benefits are calculated by changing the fraction. Some schemes will have no difficulty in paying for the improvements, given the high rates of return that they have been able to secure in the current very favourable investment climate.
There are those who argue that I should impose even higher costs by proposing higher revaluations. Having considered the matter in some detail, I am convinced that to go beyond the proposals would in practice be unrealistic. It would put an extra financial burden on schemes retrospectively and would risk the collapse of many of them—something which would jeopardise the interests of everyone in occupational pension schemes, early leavers and stayers alike.
Anyone looking objectively at developments over the last five years would concede that not enough has been achieved by voluntary effort. The case for legislation is unanswerable, and I am convinced that our proposals strike a balance that is fair and reasonable for everyone.
But the Bill does not simply seek to protect the position of those who want to leave their deferred pensions with their old employer's. Clause 2 and schedule 1 also enhance freedom of job changers to transfer their benefit rights. One of the early results of the inquiry into provision for retirement, which I am chairing, was to look at personal pensions. A clear need emerged to give early leavers the right to a transfer value.
The majority of large and medium-sized schemes already allow transfers, but not all. However, all too often the critical choice of how these transfers can be used is limited. On this aspect I issued a further consultative document in May setting out my proposals for change. These proposals won almost universal agreement and support, and are therefore incorporated in the Bill virtually unchanged.
The effect of the Bill will be that in future everyone who leaves a job after its provisions take effect will be given the right to take a transfer instead of leaving their pension rights in their old employers' scheme. The value of that transfer will be calculated in a way certified by an actuary to be a fair cash equivalent of the leavers' full pension rights in the scheme. Those rights will, of course, in their own way be enhanced by the revaluation requirement that I have just outlined.
This transfer value can be used to buy rights in a new employers' scheme, where the scheme is willing to accept the transfer. It can be used to buy an annuity with an insurance company of the leavers' choice, or it can be used in any other way laid down in the regulations. That last provision is primarily intended to cover personal pensions when they are introduced, but it will also give us freedom to include other suitable alternatives which may be developed. The right to opt for a transfer will remain open

to a year before pension age. This will give maximum choice and flexibility to the member without causing undue difficulties for the schemes.
The details of the approach to be followed in calculating fair values will be set out in regulations. We shall, of course, be consulting widely on these details. However, I can tell the House that at my request the actuarial profession is considering this whole question, and I am encouraged by the progress which it has made so far.
We are making another important but fairly small change. The age limit of 26 will be removed from the preservation requirements of the Social Security Act 1973, so that in anyone with five years' qualifying service in a scheme, regardless of how young he is, will get a preserved pension, unless he chooses to take a transfer value instead.

Mr. Tim Smith: The main grievance has been not that in some cases transferability has not been available but that where it has, the transfer value has been felt to be grossly unjust to the leaver. My right hon. Friend has referred to his discussions with the actuaries, but valuation is absolutely critical. Will he say more about the progress which has been made?

Mr. Fowler: It is because I recognise the critical nature of that valuation that we are holding discussions with the actuarial profession in England and Scotland. The aim is to find an agreed and fair way of measuring what should be transferred. It also goes without saying that if it is impossible to find that by agreement or discussion—I have no reason to believe that that will be the case—the Government will have to introduce their own standards. We are entirely at one with my hon. Friend—I recognise his interest in this regard—in seeking to find a satisfactory way of getting a valuation which is fair to the scheme member. I give him that assurance.
I have explained the important reforms for early leavers at some length because they are the vital heart of the Bill. When taken with our action in the previous Session to end franking, they go a long way to give early leavers a new and much fairer deal. Personal pensions, when they are available, will complete the process.
The reforms proposed in clause 3 and schedule 2 will benefit all scheme members — leavers and stayers. Occupational pension rights are often the biggest single asset an individual holds—worth far more than any investment he controls personally, perhaps even including his home. It must, therefore, be right that full information about that major asset should be readily available. We are taking powers in the Bill to give members access to a range of information about their pension schemes.
The detailed disclosure requirements will be set out in the regulations, and I shall consult fully on them. Members will get basic information about their rights and entitlements automatically. Other information about the way schemes are run and funds are invested will be available. The details will be sufficiently detailed to enable a qualified person acting on the member's behalf to form a complete picture of the scheme.
We shall set different requirements for different types of scheme. For example, schemes with just one member will be completely exempt because it would be nonsense to include them. Only the essential minimum financial information will be required from pay-as-you-go unfunded


schemes, and there will probably also be reduced requirements on schemes whose benefits are fully insured or guaranteed by statute.
One point that was made often when we consulted on our proposals was that members should be given simple brochures about their schemes, so that they would be able to understand the complex data that might be made available to them by schemes. I hope that schemes will provide such literature. But the exact form a booklet takes is a matter for them of presentation, not content, and is certainly not appropriate for legislation.
There have been some worries about the costs of disclosure and I shall be willing to listen to a full discussion of that. I do not, however, believe that those costs will be significant in terms of a scheme's total resources. Many schemes already provide their members with comprehensive information. Schemes which follow this good practice will find that they will have little or no extra burden as a result of the legislation. We propose to back up the disclosure requirements with a pension schemes register on lines similar to the companies registration office. The register will have several functions. It will act as a central check on schemes' compliance with the disclosure requirements. It will provide an additional avenue for members to bring pressure on unco-operative schemes. It will provide a central, readily available public source of information about schemes which will encourage best practice and enable comparison to be made between performance and standards.
Trustees or managers of schemes will be required to lodge copies of scheme documents, annual reports and other information with the pension schemes register. The register's costs will be recovered from registration fees and fees for inspecting documents. The register will provide a powerful incentive to schemes to comply with the disclosure requirements and will act as a powerful back-up to disclosure.
I appreciate the desire of schemes to have their rules set out in one document. That is why the Occupational Pensions Board will be placed under a duty to determine whether scheme rules meet the legislative requirements. If they do, the scheme will be governed by its rules without reference to the legislation. Therefore, schemes which wish can make the override an interim measure only.
That is the position briefly on occupational pensions. They form the major part of the Bill, but that is not to under-estimate the importance of the other provisions in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled will deal in more detail with two important social security changes that feature in part II. The first provides that married women who are entitled to the over-80s pension at the lower rate will qualify for the standard rate paid to men and other women over 80. Their benefit will increase by an additional £8·65 a week when benefits are uprated next year. The second will have the effect of restoring the 5 per cent. abatement in invalidity pensions when I carry out the 1985 review of benefit rates. The rate of invalidity pension will rise by £1·55 a week for a single pensioner and £2·50 for couples in addition to the normal uprating. I am sure that both changes will be welcomed.

Mr. Michael Meacher: How many of those who will supposedly get the restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit will actually get it?

What recompense will the Secretary of State make to those who have been deprived of the benefit for the past five years?

Mr. Fowler: I have no proposals on the latter point, but to answer the hon. Gentleman's former point, probably about half. Perhaps I may allow my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with this.
Part III of the Bill deals with the statutory sick pay scheme. The Government believe that it makes sense to extend the scheme to cover the whole period for which state sickness benefit is normally paid. This will cut the overlap of occupational sick pay schemes with national insurance sickness benefits. It will reduce the effect of the anomaly caused by state sickness benefit not being taxable. It will save public expenditure and reduce staff numbers in my Department. Above all, perhaps, it builds on the success of the scheme in operation since its introduction in 1983. The responses that we have received suggest that many employees prefer statutory sick pay to sickness benefit from the state. When they are sick, all the money comes from one source, rather than from two. For those reasons, I propose that from April 1986 statutory sick pay will cover the first 28 weeks of sickness instead of eight weeks as now.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State said that he has evidence from employees that they favour the change. Will he tell us more about that evidence? I have heard no such views.

Mr. Fowler: The information collected by the Department shows that the staff whom we have been able to survey believe that the statutory sick pay scheme is an improvement upon the other scheme. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to provide the exact data on that. [Interruption.] I must leave my hon. Friend something to do in this debate.
Obviously, what I propose will mean some extra work for employers. However, now that statutory sick pay has successfully become a part of employers' pay procedures, this should not be extensive. Our aim has always been to keep procedures as simple as possible. To achieve that end we shall continue to consult employers' representatives fully. That is why the detailed provisions have been left to be covered in regulations. The House may wish to know that we have already had an initial response from the CBI acknowledging the basic sense of what we propose.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Minister of State will be replying about sick pay, will the Secretary of State nevertheless have regard to the small business man—the shopkeeper—for whom the change will have a significant effect and which may account for his present profits? I am thinking of the small rural storekeeper, of which there are many in my constituency. They are extremely worried about the change.

Mr. Fowler: We have decided to relieve employers of the cost of their share of the national insurance contributions paid on statutory sick pay. The significance of that, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, and other such organisations, have made this their major complaint about statutory sick pay. We are relieving them of the cost of their share of the national insurance contributions paid on statutory sick pay, so we


are meeting their case on that. That will mean a current saving for employers of up to £40 million a year. I propose to make that change not just from 1 April 1986 but from 1 April 1985, a year before we extend the scheme, and I shall table an amendment to the Bill in committee. I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has been met.
Although there may be difficulties of detail on this legislation, the Bill deserves support. The reforms that I am introducing for occupational pensions schemes, in particular, represent the most significant legislative proposals for this subject for at least 10 years. They are only part of our far wider scrutiny of provision for retirement. They are only part of the strategy that we are developing to safeguard the interests of the retired and their families, not just over the next few years but into the next century. I believe that they represent an important step forward, and one that holds a fair balance between the stability of the schemes themselves and the interests of their 11 million members.
These are important proposals that represent an important reform of occupational pensions. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Even more than most of the other social security legislation of this Government, this is a deceptive Bill. There are items in it that merit support in principle and that the Opposition support, but, even in these cases, more detailed scrutiny of the small print suggests that they are seriously flawed by many offsetting drawbacks. Thus, some restoration of the previous cuts is balanced by new cuts applied to the more obscure parts of the social security system where public understanding is weakest.
It is highly disturbing that the main thrust of the Bill is towards extending privatisation, with all its known disadvantages, over which the Secretary of State glossed very glibly, into further parts of the welfare state—notably long-term sickness. There are ominous signs that the way is being paved for privatisation to disrupt key parts of the all-important pensions sector—notably earnings-related pensions—and an assault on Labour's Social Security Pensions Act 1975 which laid the framework for by far the best deal that pensioners have ever had. No doubt the suspicious trend that can already be detected in this Bill will be fully reflected in the Secretary of State's reports early next year, when they reveal the full scale of the assault being planned on the whole of the welfare state.
Part I of the Bill deals with occupational pensions. We welcome in principle the proposal to revalue deferred pensions, although we regret that it has taken three years to act on the 1981 Occupational Pensions Board report to this effect. However, the Government's formula, based, as the Secretary of State said, on only 5 per cent. a year, or in accordance with the rise in prices, is seriously defective. The proposals will mean that early leavers are still at a disadvantage compared with stayers, who are covered in the Labour Government's 1974 Act for rises in line with earnings. The proposal is already out of line—the Secretary of State may not fully appreciate this—with what the National Association of Pension Funds, not the Labour party, says is happening—that 70 per cent. of the funds are already revaluing at 8 per cent.

Mr. Roger Freeman: That is not true.

Mr. Meacher: That is my information. It is out of line with the guaranteed minimum pension, which is guaranteed in terms of earnings increases. Moreover, it offers a poor prospect—

Mr. Fowler: I thought that I was hearing things. Did the hon. Gentleman say that 70 per cent. of pension funds are revaluing at 8 per cent.?

Mr. Meacher: That is my information.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Mr. Meacher: It is not a bit surprising, in view of the large actuarial surpluses which are building up in many of these funds.
Moreover, the Bill offers a poor prospect. The Government Actuary estimates that the basic state pension will fall to only 10 per cent. of future average earnings if increased in line with prices only. There is no reason to believe that occupational pensions under a similar formula will do any better. In the 1982 quinquennial review, the Government Actuary illustrated this effect on the assumption of an annual 2 per cent. difference in the increase in earnings and prices, which is a reasonable assumption, over 20 years. Compared with earnings, a pension would be worth 15 per cent. less in real terms after 10 years and more than 30 per cent. less after 20 years.
For these reasons, we believe that the 5 per cent. revaluation figure is inadequate because, on the basis of several alternative comparisons, it will provide the early leaver with a poor deal. I agree that it will be better than what he has at the moment, but, if we are to pick a figure, the Government should pick a better one.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is it not ludicrous for the Opposition to criticise the 5 per cent. figure, which is at least in line with the level of inflation under this Government, when for years under the Labour Government, with double figure inflation, there was no protection of any kind?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get into that kind of argument, I should point out that there was double figure inflation under this Government in 1981, when the rate of inflation year on year was 22 per cent. That is my point. Why did the Government not then act to introduce a measure such as this? They waited three years, and inflation is now 5 per cent. Looking at historic trends, the increase should be in line with earnings, or nearer towards the trend of earnings, which is between 7 and 8 per cent.
We also oppose the revaluation arrangements, because they omit all pensions deferred before 1 January 1985. Surely it is reasonable that these retirement pensions should be backdated at least to the time of publication of the relevant OPB report in 1981. The Secretary of State has argued on many occasions, and again tonight, that this would undermine existing schemes, but the OPB has pointed out that pension funds are building up substantial actuarial surpluses, and many actuaries have, by their funding assumptions, built up reserves to cover this problem. In this important respect, the revaluation proposals are flawed.
On transfer values, the Bill's proposals are an advance, but in a manner that leaves much to be desired. First, it is difficult to see how fair transfer values can be


guaranteed without standardising the methods of calculation and the assumptions for calculating those values, perhaps as a result of the discussions to which the Secretary of State referred. If that happens, we shall welcome it. The calculations should be open to the transferring member, and it is reasonable to have an adjudication procedure for disputes, bearing in mind the importance, as the Secretary of State stressed, of occupational pensions as assets. We need an adjudication procedure similar to that for employment and industrial disputes. We should like to see that in the Bill.
Furthermore, the proposed general framework for transfers is far from satisfactory. Unless employers are required to accept transfer values for use in their pensions schemes, the transfers to annuities and other arrangements are inevitable. That is no doubt designed to open up the way for personal portable pensions.
Above all, more protection than is proposed is needed if some early leavers are not to make some disastrous pension investments. As a minimum, this requires stricter controls and publicity material by brokers and insurers in selling deferred annuity policies, requirements that employers make advice from competent pension consultants available to early leavers, a right to a period within which any prospective section 32 policy member can change his mind, as happens with insurance policies and hire-purchase agreements, and discretion for trustees to refuse to transfer to policies which are not approved. None of these requirements is at present explicit in the Bill. In the Opposition's view, all of them should be.
As for the disclosure of more information about occupational pension schemes to their members in clause 3, obviously that is desirable in itself, but again it is offered in a manner which, in our view, falls short of what is needed. In the absence of the details of the regulations, which are not included in the Bill, I can only quote from the consultative document. It is proposed there to provide
information sufficient to enable an expert pension adviser to form a complete picture of the scheme and its financial soundness.
That is hardly enough. Scheme members themselves ought to be able to judge a scheme on its merits, and the employer should be obliged to provide this information in an easily readable leaflet form.

Mr. Kennedy: I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's view on a matter which follows from that. Looking ahead to potential money purchase schemes, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an argument for saying that employees — members of the schemes — should be able to elect trustees and have greater direct control, obviously subject to professional advice, over where investments are made? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the direct election of trustees of money purchase schemes?

Mr. Meacher: Certainly I am in favour of more member control over trustees and of more consultation — subject to professional advice, which is very important. Members' interests and the interests of representatives of those members should be more closely taken into account.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Are we to take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour party has now dropped the idea, current a few years ago, that 50 per cent. of the trustees should be appointed by trade unions?

Mr. Meacher: I do not regard that as inconsistent with what I have just said. I believe that there should be more control and participation by members and more information provided to them. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and I have a difference of view here, but I do not see why that should not be done through the trade unions. That has happened in the best cases, and I hope that it will be taken further.
The consultative document also says:
remedies for non-compliance would correspond to those already available for non-compliance with other statutory requirements.
However, it is impracticable for most individual members of a pension scheme to resort to an expensive and uncertain civil action against the trustees. If we believe in employee redress, we need a right written into the Bill for a member to be able to take steps to force disclosure by reporting an employer to an authority, such as the Occupational Pensions Board, which would then act on the employee's behalf.
What is most worrying about the whole of part I is its pre-empting of the pensions inquiry which is still under way and its assuming some of its recommendations. The original compromise allowing contracting out offers a ready-made structure for a privatisation solution, subject to resolving the major problems of transferability and portability. But, quite apart from the opportunity presented, I cannot emphasise too strongly that any shift away from the earnings-related supplement in the state pension scheme would be nothing short of catastrophic for our 9·5 million pensioners. Not only would it disadvantage severely those unable to obtain an adequate pension through an occupational pension scheme — those on lower earnings; most manual workers and most women — but it would destroy the one escape route from means-tested poverty which was put in place by the Labour Government in their 1975 scheme and which will take virtually every pensioner, as of right, above the supplementary benefit line by 1998. To destroy such a prospect, if that is intended, in the interests of the dogma of privatisation in moving out the earnings-related part of state pensions into the private sector would be a crime against our pensioners.
One demand that we make is that the Secretary of State, or the Minister, should formally repudiate any such intention. I should be glad to give way to the Secretary of State, or to the Minister, if he wished to make such a declaration. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that. I find it disturbing that there is an unwillingness on their part to make a statement of that kind. It is clear that the Bill paves the way for such a possibility, and that is deeply disturbing. It would have extremely damaging effects on pensioners' interests. If that is not the intention, it should be made clear as soon as possible.
In part II, the Secretary of State has brazenly sought to take credit for restoring in November 1985 the Government's former 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit. I need hardly say that it should never have been cut in the first place. We cannot express much gratitude to those who merely restore a cut which should never have been made. Moreover, since the 5 per cent. abatement was only justified in 1980 as a precursor to taxation, and since taxation has been recognised by the Government to be impracticable, there is a clear case in equity for the Government being obliged to compensate claimants for the money that they have lost because of an error or


foolishness on the part of the Government. The Secretary of State appeared not to have thought about it. I ask him to think about it now.
Between 1980, when the abatement was first instituted, and November 1985 a single person will have been deprived of £354 and a married couple of £569 as a result. Perhaps even more strikingly, had Labour's historic method of fixing invalidity benefit according to the higher of prices or earnings been applied, a married couple on invalidity benefit would now be getting £7·35 a week more than they are. So much for the Government's generosity. They should be on their knees to invalidity pensioners and apologising for having robbed them of money. They show no sign of contrition, and no readiness to return it.
Worse still, the Secretary of State admitted that nearly half the 750,000 disabled people due to receive the 5 per cent. restoration of benefit will find all or part of the increase clawed back. About 150,000 invalidity benefit claimants are also on supplementary benefit, so the increase of 5 per cent. will be correspondingly deducted from the supplementary benefit entitlement. Then the Government have made the mean decision to ban people from receiving both the invalidity allowance and the earnings-related supplement, whereas at present they are entitled to both. That will affect another 150,000 persons.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Antony Newton): I shall be commenting on the latter point later. However, to avoid anyone being misled, as on one occasion The Guardian has been misled, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the fact that those on supplementary benefit do not gain from the restoration of the abatement corresponds with the fact that they did not suffer from the abatement in the first place. If they were on supplementary benefit, anything that they lost on invalidity benefit was made up on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Meacher: That is technically true, but it is important that people should have non-means-tested benefits. Labour members always argue that. There is a great deal of difference between a non-means-tested benefit and a means-tested benefit. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will, I regret, assure the House that half those who are supposed to receive that restoration of benefit will receive nothing, because it is clawed back either in whole or in part.
Losing the lower of invalidity allowance or earnings-related supplement may mean that people could lose more by this measure than they would gain from the 5 per cent. abatement. I appreciate that we cannot know for certain, because we do not know the figures for November 1985. But a ministerial statement on 12 November 1984 said:
existing beneficiaries will be protected to ensure that their benefit is not actually reduced.
Therefore, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that those claimants will not lose more by this further cut than they will gain by the belated restoration of a previous cut? That is an important question. Once again, I shall be happy to give way if I can have an assurance that that will be so. If the Secretary of State will not give that commitment, it shows that, so far from the Bill improving the position of invalidity pensioners, it will make matters worse for many of them.
Let me give an example. On the November 1984 rates, as from today, a person incapacitated at the age of 40 with

an invalidity allowance of £7·50 a week will lose an average earnings-related addition of £2·50 a week and will gain only a single person's 5 per cent. abatement of £1·71 a week. That is not generosity; it is a further imposed deprivation. That is why we have strongly opposed that part of the Bill. By all means restore what should never have been cut, but it is exceedingly mean to make further cuts as a result of which many people will once again be worse off.
The third major change in part III is the extension of statutory sick pay from eight to 28 weeks. The effect of that major extension of privatisation is that all the worst anomalies of sick pay will be exacerbated. The Secretary of State's extremely bland reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) staggered me. Substantial arguments have built up against statutory sick pay in the light of experience. If he does not know them, I shall spell them out.
First, benefit rates for sick pay are paid on the basis of salary, not need. That means that families with children are worse off under sick pay than under national insurance sickness benefit.
Secondly, taxation is levied on sick pay, not on sickness benefit. National insurance contributions are also payable, with all their regressive burden weighted against the low paid.
Thirdly, sick pay and sickness benefit are paid only after four or more days of illness. But while sickness benefit links different short periods of illness within an eight-week period, sick pay only does that within a two-week period. That is far meaner and will mean that a number of people will not get the benefit of sick pay whereas they would have got it if sickness benefit were still on offer.
Fourthly, there is a significant drawback under the statutory sick pay arrangements. If, for example, a worker has received his holiday pay in advance within the eight-week assessment period prior to the sickness, or if he were on an overtime ban or anything that might reduce his wages, his sick pay will be correspondingly lower.
Fifthly, sick pay, under the aegis of employers, is refused if a worker goes sick during an industrial dispute.
Sixthly, if a worker books his holiday and then becomes sick, employers are entitled under the sick pay arrangements to regard him as being on holiday.
Seventhly, and importantly, since most illnesses are over in eight weeks and only the serious ones go on to 28 weeks, there are real fears that employers will discriminate against people with frequent sickness records. Indeed, the unions have already picked up monitoring by employers which shows an increase in their concern with health records. There must be a real worry that that will be turned against those who, through no fault of their own, are frequently ill.
Eighthly, sick pay is often wrongly calculated. The Secretary of State should know that his Department has been making inquiries. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses recently found that one in four small businesses was making errors. In December last year the Department stated that out of 180,000 cases checked, one in six—16 per cent.—made either over or under-payments.
Ninthly, employee redress is clearly weaker under the sick pay arrangements. If people are unwilling to take on the DHSS at a tribunal, even fewer will be willing to take on their employers.
I could go on, but I shall not. The Secretary of State said that he was not aware of any disadvantages, but I hope that I have given him nine strong reasons why sick pay is manifestly bad. Employer-controlled sick pay suffers from a series of hidden drawbacks. That is why we strongly reject this extension of it.
One final major objection concerns the abolition of employers' national insurance contributions on sick pay. Did I hear the Secretary of State say that that was to be done a year early? That is an extraordinarily generous concession when we are told that there is not the money to pay people the kind of benefits that are needed and when there are extra cuts so that invalidity benefit claimants cannot have the full 5 per cent. restoration. That is extraordinarily generous of the Secretary of State when he has been extremely mean to employees.
The abolition of national insurance contributions on sick pay proposed in the Bill is a blatant repudiation— not only when it is paid a year early but whenever it is paid — of the principle enunciated by the Minister with responsibility for the disabled as recently as 1982. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said:
In relation to the question of principle … the earnings-related contribution schemes are geared to the basic concept of employers and employees both paying contributions on all assessable earnings. It is alien to the scheme structure to expect employees but not their employers to contribute on one type of assessable earnings."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 February 1982; c. 367.]
I should be interested to know on what grounds there has been a U-turn in Government thinking, so much so that they are eager to offer that benefit to employers one year early.
The Government have largely caved in to the employers to secure that big extension in privatization — if I am wrong, the Minister will tell me—even at the expense of substantially reducing any savings in public expenditure. The first offer to employers was a reduction of 0·5 per cent. on national insurance contributions to compensate for their extra cost. Savings to the Exchequer for removal of sickness benefit responsibility would then be £375 million. The Exchequer would lose £420 million in national insurance contributions from employers and the Government would get tax on sick pay worth about £200 million. They would also save £30 million in administration costs. Thus, public expenditure would be reduced by £400 million for a net revenue loss of £200 million. That was the original offer, as I understand it. Now, several offers later, the Government have agreed that employers are to deduct the full cost of their payments of sick pay from national insurance contributions. Therefore, compensation to employers has risen sharply to £565 million and the Government have made only half the estimated savings on Civil Service costs.
The net saving to the Exchequer from that huge exercise, with the enormous disadvantages to employees that I have spelt out, is only £40 million, not the proposed £200 million. In addition, the net effect is a direct transfer from employees' incomes via taxation to the incomes of employers. That is why we strongly reject it. Those financial effects are another fundamental reason why we oppose these provisions.
This is a mixed Bill and we give it a mixed reception. We support the principle of revaluation of deferred pensions, but we reject the failure to backdate that protection to existing pensioners, at least for three years.

We support wider disclosure for occupational pension scheme members, but we insist that it must benefit not only experts, but ordinary members. We welcome the restoration of the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit, but we are appalled that the Government can be so brazen as to make further cuts which will prevent half the potential beneficiaries making any gain. We oppose the major extension of privatisation of sick pay, because, in manifold ways, it will worsen the position of many groups of low-paid and vulnerable workers in terms of sickness provision, will not bring about the public expenditure savings that were promised and will redistribute income from poorer workers to employers.
For all those reasons, we give the Bill conditional support. I shall therefore ask the House to vote for our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I shall deal solely with the occupational pensions aspect in part I of the Bill.
The House will know that for a long time I have been concerned about the problems of early leavers from occupational pension schemes. I suppose it could be said that I have been a thorn in the flesh of successive Governments in pressing on them just the sort of legislation that we are considering.
It was about eight years ago that I first drew to the attention of hon. Members the inequity and injustice which appeared to exist in regard to those who changed their occupations with any frequency. Therefore, it is a considerable personal pleasure for me to be able warmly to welcome the legislation.
The Bill is not perfect. In an ideal world we could no doubt go much further, but, by any reckoning, the Bill is a major step along a road which I have been anxious to travel for some time.
Few people would now contend that it is other than wrong to penalise those whose only crime is that they wish to change employment. Whether on grounds of equity or mobility of labour, there is a strong argument for dealing more fairly with those who change their jobs.
We all know about the different pensions payable to the man who changes jobs two or three times in his working lifetime and the man who stays with his original employer until retirement. The man who, on the face of it, has shown enterprise and initiative by changing jobs, perhaps to go where the work is or to better himself so that he can look after his family, is penalised, whereas the man who stays with his employer gets a pension which may be 50, 60 or 70 per cent. higher than that of the man who has moved around.
Some will say that such a result is no more than the reward for loyalty, but that is an attitude of yesteryear. If we are to encourage enterprise and mobility, we cannot continue to penalise those who change jobs. I have no doubt that the Bill will immeasurably assist in that aim.
I am sure that the Bill will receive almost universal approval. I particularly welcome the fact that not only are we to have preservation or uprating of pension entitlements after an employee has left, but that there is to be the alternative of transferability and, within that, a range of options. It is a fair Bill, which recognises that whether or not the 5 per cent. is adequate it is a reasonable


percentage at which to pitch the required annual revaluation. The range of options available to those who go for transferability is also a move in the right direction.
However, I am a little disturbed that until the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State there had been so little mention of the cost of the proposals or who was likely to have to pay for them. I regret that I find in this world little of the "nothing for nothing" approach.
Earnings on previous employees' contributions have been used to boost the pensions of those who stay with the employer. That is unfair, but it has been cost-effective.
We must presume that the same pensions will be expected by those who have remained with one employer during their working lifetime, yet there is to be more justice given to early leavers. Therefore, the total costs must rise. Thus, it is appropriate for us to ask who will carry the financial burden. Will it be those who have stayed loyal to one employer? That would be unjust in the extreme. Will it be those who have changed employment frequently and who are now to be given some belated justice? If so, it would seem to be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. One reaches the inescapable conclusion that employers will have to find the additional cost.
I am worried that employers with smaller pension schemes may discover that it becomes so difficult to find the extra outlay to meet the provisions of the Bill that they will have to consider seriously the continuation of the scheme. I hope that that will not be the case, and I stress that pension funds will probably have to think carefully about their investment performance. Not all pension schemes perform in such a way as to minimise the cost to the employer. In addition, administration costs of some schemes could be brought under better control. However, there will be additional costs and they will have to be met by employers.
There is no problem for the Government. Even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did not suggest that there should be a subvention from Government funds to enable transferability to be implemented. However, just because the Government have no direct responsibility, Ministers cannot sweep these matters under the carpet. On the contrary, they will have seen only this weekend a statement by the Engineering Employers Federation, which is worried that the Government's proposals will impose considerable additional costs on employers. That must be conceded and, therefore, it is important that the Government do not put any additional impositions on occupational pension schemes.
The proposal to give more information to members of pension funds is obviously a move in the right direction. However, much depends on the sort of information that one has in mind. I hope that we shall not become so prone to communicating every jot and title of pension fund management that we succeed only in confusing pension fund members with comparative irrelevancies. We should consider providing more information on how the fund is performing, particularly against the expectations that have to be achieved if the promised pensions are to be delivered.
It is right that fund members should be made aware of where money is invested and what steps are being taken to redress any shortfalls on investment returns, but I beg the House not to assume that every member of a pension scheme is accustomed to the jargon of institutional

investors. The fundamentals must be communicated to the average member of a scheme, but I hope that such communication will be meaningful.
The Bill is a trailer for the introduction of portable pensions. They were talked about previously as the force which would open the oyster to produce a major step forward in the advancement of a property-owning democracy. In the recent past a more realistic assessment of the limits of what can be achieved by portable pensions has come upon us.
Such a move would extend freedom of choice, assist mobility and ease the pressure on the state system, and to that extent I am in favour of it. The competition that portable pensions would bring to the traditional occupational pensions schemes would do nothing but good. The performance of some occupational schemes has been sluggish, to say the least.
Portable pensions have long-term implications. They would have an effect on occupational pension schemes. Who will opt for a portable pension? I predict that the young or mobile will choose a portable pension. If they leave occupational pension schemes, the imbalance in the age distribution might make some of the occupational schemes unviable.
A good argument can be made for applying some controls on where portable pensions funds can invest pensioners' money. Without controls we run the risk of providing the individual with an inadequate pension, which might force him back on social benefits, which is the antithesis of what the Government wish to achieve.
Although I welcome the broad concepts of portable pensions, we must be careful when introducing them not to destabilise existing occupational schemes. No benefit could be gained from doing that. We should be looking for balance when the successor to the Bill is introduced. A competitive spur can do nothing but good for the existing schemes at the heart of the legislation.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend says that young and mobile people will opt for portable pensions, but why should anyone opt for portable pensions if there is no obligation on the employer to make up the contribution?

Mr. McCrindle: That is a considerable defect. If my hon. Friend suggests that he will join me in pressing for a change in that proposal before a scheme is introduced, he will find a ready listener. [Interruption.] Some of us know a little about these matters, and hon. Members might do well to pay attention.
Opposition Members should also pay attention to another fundamental and important point which I want to make to the Secretary of State. I cannot welcome the Bill without raising the associated and inseparable topic of the tax treatment of pension funds and contributions. Tax relief applies in three areas—to the contributions to an occupational scheme, to the lump sums that can be taken in lieu of part of a pension and to the fund itself.
The suggestion is that there may be a movement towards removing some or all of those tax reliefs. If there were a move to change tax relief on pension funds' contributions, I should consider that a betrayal which would upset personal budgeting. If that happened, we could no longer make membership of an occupational pension scheme a condition of employment. It would also probably lead to a substantial undermining of occupational


pension schemes, and would have a powerfully adverse political effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay particular attention to that.
If tax exemption on the lump sum which can be taken on retirement is to be the target of changes, many of us believe that, since tax is paid when the lump sum is spent, it would be close to double taxation. It would also compare unfavourably with the position of a person who had tried to arrange for his retirement through an endowment pension scheme, the proceeds of which are free of capital gains tax. The threat that such a change might happen in future is leading people such as senior police officers coming up to retirement age to opt for retirement because they cannot face the thought of the lump sum to which they are entitled being subject to taxation.
If 10 per cent. were levied on the fund itself and the benefits had to remain as promised, that would have to be paid in some way. Once again, one would have to expect improved performance from the fund and turn to the employers. That, allied to the additional costs which are implicit in the Bill's proposals, could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take my comments on board and not fail to communicate the concern which many of us would feel if there were a move towards taxation under one of the headings to which I have referred.
Although my right hon. Friend may be forgiven for not understanding me, I give a warm welcome to the Bill. My welcome is allied to a call for realism about the cost entailed to employers in introducing its provisions. My welcome is also allied to a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could yet torpedo all that has been achieved by occupational pension schemes. I hope that it is not unparliamentary to say that the best advice I can give to the Chancellor in this respect is, "Hands off'.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Frank Field: Where are they?

Mr. Kennedy: That is like the pot calling the kettle black. In proportional terms, I probably represent the alliance better than those Labour Members present just now represent their party.
We welcome the principle which the Secretary of State is advancing in the Bill. A reform of occupational pensions is long overdue. As the Secretary of State said, unfairnesses have afflicted the so-called early leavers.
The Secretary of State was right to emphasise fairness, freedom of information and the need to encourage job mobility. Although I endorse that thrust, I believe that the Bill could have been more ambitious. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) sees the Bill as a forerunner to a further change, and the Secretary of State will probably confirm that.
The Bill is probably only the first step towards any real improvement. We should be cautious, because the American experience of 10 years ago with the employee retirement income security legislation, based on the same principles, caused difficulties with the burdens that it put on employers. It became self-defeating.
Eventually, it thwarted its own purpose. There is some disappointment with the pace that the Government have set

themselves. Some say that they are being too cautious but it is probably right to proceed with some caution rather than frenetically in the way that ended with the American experience.
When the scheme is implemented, there will inevitably be financial pressure, and pressure will obviously fall on employers. I am sure that none of us wants employers to be inhibited by additional pressures in taking on new employees. That would run contrary to the spirit of other measures in the Bill.
Comparability between those who have retired and those who are in work has been discussed. There will also be two groups in work. One group will be in the occupational scheme and the other will consist of those who contract out into their own schemes. If inflation is above 5 per cent., there will be a cut in the pension entitlement, and if it is less than 5 per cent., or if public sector wage increases are higher that 5 per cent., some will be caught by that limit. That could be a cause for frustration and division. It will be interesting to hear the Government's thinking on these matters. I am reminded of the value of X in the privatisation of British Telecom. The then Bill included the RPI minus X formula. There will always be arguments about the value of X in terms of the figures that are brought forward as a result of the Bill.
The policy set out in the Bill is that those who change jobs should have the pension entitlement that they have built up in previous employment protected against an inflation rate which has been set at 5 per cent. That rate could be regarded in some circumstances as too high. If there is a target figure against which pension increases are being paid, that measure may be adopted by employees for their pay increases. The annual expectation of a 5 per cent. increase or a 5 per cent. revaluation rate could be inflationary. A 20 per cent. increase in pension costs for employers could act against their interests and the interests generally that the Government wish to promote
The Engineering Employers Federation has said that it would like the rate to be nearer 3 per cent. and to be determined from year to year. That reflects the difficulties that employers could face. It is difficult to make predictions at this stage and we shall have to wait until the scheme is set up and implemented. Like the Government, we are conscious of the doubts of both employee and employer organisations.

Mr. Tim Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was advancing the arguments which have been advanced by the Engineering Employers Federation. Surely there would be inflationary expectations only if the rate of inflation were less than 5 per cent. If the rate of inflation were less than 5 per cent., the increase in deferred pensions would also be less than 5 per cent.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not reciting an argument that has been presented to me by the federation or anyone else. If inflation is running at a rate lower than 5 per cent.. there may be expectations. At the same time, the Government must not rest on their laurels and ignore the possibility of inflation increasing once again. It would take only an oil price explosion to ruin the Government's economic policies or those of any other Government.
There is an unfairness because the current percentage calculations are based on final salary. The problem can be overcome if there is an elimination of that criterion. One approach is to take account of the defined contributions


that will be necessary. These contributions should be invested and they should move with the transferee when he or she moves to alternative employment. Those in the City who are involved in assessing possible mergers already consider the pension savings that may accrue when a merger takes place. If two companies are brought together and there is a shedding of staff, that can have a considerable demographic effect on the pension scheme.
A second example that should be considered is that of a holding company that has overall control of two separate organisations from which employees may transfer and who in doing so lose certain entitlements. The Minister is probably aware that between 25 and 33 per cent. of employees are in the younger age group and can be expected to move on elsewhere. What does the Minister think will be the overall effect of that on those who are left in the companies from which they move? They will obviously have less incentive, if any, to withdraw from the scheme. There could be extremely damaging effects on pension schemes for those in the 35 to 40-year age group, and those who are older, who are left with a scheme which is receiving a smaller financial contribution overall. The scheme will offer a less attractive investment and problems will accumulate.
I am conscious that time is passing and I am aware that other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), wish to participate. That being so, I shall not detain the House for much longer.
The Secretary of State spoke about the need for professional advice in investment policy. Even with professional advice, when stocks are at a low value that can lead to the quality of the investment being reduced. It might be argued that that is the purpose of professional advice. Given the way in which the market works, there may be instances when that happens. That will lead to difficulties for the employees who are involved. It is desirable that we try to make trustees of schemes answerable to employees when they want to know what is happening to their investments, subject to professional advice.
I hope that the Government, in showing that they are willing to take greater steps towards increased scrutiny—for example, with the register—will not bow to the wishes of the employees who tend to want to call the shots when deciding the nature of the investment. I welcome the setting up of the register. It may allow greater information to be made available. There is concern, however, that the register incorporating pension schemes, annual reports and financial documents could result in too much money spent on administration and not enough on the benefits of the scheme.
In principle, we welcome the legislation, although there will be points to be argued at greater length. We shall certainly give the Bill our support.

Mr. Roger Freeman: I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department for the speed with which they have brought the Bill forward to deal with the urgent problem of the early leaver. The difficulty in comprehending this complicated issue is borne out by the fact that the Opposition Benches are so empty and the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham,

West (Mr. Meacher) made such a dramatic and appalling error when he talked about the current practice in the private sector of indexing the deferred rights of early leavers.
I shall set the record straight. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was incorrect in saying that 70 per cent. of private sector schemes index by up to 8 per cent. the deferred rights of early leavers. The truth is that few schemes in the private sector index in that way; hence the need for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may have been confused by the provisions for indexing the graduated minimum pension or the provisions for pensions in payment. That error should be corrected and the record set straight.
I shall concentrate on two issues: first, the rate of indexation; and, secondly, the effective date for indexation of deferred pension rights. The Bill provides that for early leavers only service after 1 January 1985 will be indexed. We are not talking about the whole of the pensionable service of an early leaver who leaves the pension scheme after 1 January 1985.
To a certain extent the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) were misplaced. The initial effect on industrial and commercial costs of operating a final salary pension scheme will be modest. We are talking of between 1 and 2 per cent. of payroll costs. That is not an excessively onerous provision. I hope—I know that several of my hon. Friends will agree—that some companies will take the initiative and index the whole of those deferred rights for the whole of the qualifying pensionable service. It is right that the Bill should require the much more modest and, I believe, financially acceptable provision for service only after 1 January 1985.
A balance must always be struck between equity and cost. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who dealt eloquently with the inequities in the historical provision for early leavers, in commending the Government for introducing provisions to right the great historical wrongs to the early leavers. We must, however, take account of the costs which are ultimately borne by the employer, who is the final guarantor of final salary schemes.
The maximum rate at which early leaver benefits can be indexed is 5 per cent. Last Session I introduced a Bill on the subject. Frankly, I should have preferred a different approach. I would have required pension schemes to make the same increase for deferred pensioners as has been decided for pensions in payment. That would provide equity between the early leaver and the pensioner who received a pension in payment.
I accept that the Bill provides broadly the same thing. Hon. Members may be aware that 5 per cent. is the recommended target rate for increasing pensions in payment. This dates back to the Occupational Pensions Board's recommendation. That is a target, not a legislative requirement. The Bill contains a legislative requirement to index the early leaver's benefits up to a maximum of 5 per cent. I accept that one of the benefits of the medium-term fiancial strategy during the next few years will be to hold inflation below 5 per cent—as we hope that it will decline from that level—and therefore the provisions in the Bill are equitable and just. In practice, most companies will be increasing pensions in payment for the pensioner


who has retired at the same rate as the increase that is awarded for the pensionable service of the early leaver earned after 1 January 1985.
Transferability is confusing. My hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) touched on this point. The House must appreciate the fact that the transferability rights written into the Bill are the other side of the coin to indexing the rights of the early leaver. There is no enhanced value to transfer without the indexation provisions for the early leaver's benefits. It is only because the first part of the Bill provides for the indexation of the frozen or deferred rights that one gets an enhanced value to transfer if one chooses to move those rights to another scheme or a portable pension plan. The transferability rights are complementary to the provisions on indexation.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said about taxation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there would be no problem for private sector employers in paying the 1 or 2 per cent. increase in payroll costs because recently investment returns had been good. Surely that is the key. If there are dramatic moves in next year's Budget — for example, taxation of investment income and realised capital gains from occupational pension schemes—we will be pulling the rug out from the excellent two feet which the Bill introduces — provisions for indexation and transferability. I hope that the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security will remind our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the importance of retaining stability in the tax regime.
I commend the provisions on disclosure. It is a great sadness that hitherto it was not until one reached the age of 50 or 55 that one began to worry about one's pension. I hope that the provisions contained in the Bill for greater disclosure and access to information by employees will encourage those aged 20 and 25 to make proper provision for pensions.

Mr. Frank Field: Although I am sure that it was unintentional, the Secretary of State misled the House when he concentrated upon the pension proposals. One can see how misleading it was, because so far no one has disagreed with the substance of the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made the valid point that the measures do not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who brings considerable expertise to these debates, was laying down marks of caution to his hon. Friends. He was telling them that they should go so far but no further. However, there is no dispute about the nature of the reforms being proposed.
There was agreement about the proposal relating to the revaluing of pensions and the disclosure of information. I do not believe that any of us will vote against them. There have been some modest changes.
We are really debating the compulsory savings that most people have to make. They are compulsory savings to occupational private schemes, and we should be judging whether we are giving those people, who have no choice in the matter, a fair deal. We see how far we are from giving them a fair deal when the Secretary of State reminds us that even taking into account the value of a person's home, their right to a pension is probably their "biggest single asset", and I quote him there. When wealth figures

are published, the tendency is to add pension rights into them, yet when one considers the Bill against those figures we see how modest the reforms are that the Government are proposing.
When most people think about wealth, they think about their rights to realise an asset and to make a choice about it. The pension contributions are a major form of compulsory saving yet most people cannot gain access to the assets until they retire, and then it is on terms which are not determined by them.
If the Government were non-paternalistic, as they often like to tell us they are, they would bring forward a measure which would allow people if they so wished to cash their pensions long before their pensionable age. In other words, we would say, "If you believe that you can make a better deal by a business initiative yourself, or to invest the funds yourself, we will give you the right to take the value of your pension now to do just that." Of course this would have to be accompanied by an understanding that if that initiative failed, there would only be the state scheme to fall back on. It is some measure of how timid the Government are, that we are discussing only these reforms tonight. They show also how paternalistic the Government are because they would throw up their hands in horror rather than bring forward such a measure.

Mr. Yeo: Apart from my amusement at the hon. Gentleman's apparent condemnation of the paternalistic attitude, it is possible for someone with a personal portable pension to borrow against the value of that pension. Does that not go a long way towards giving people in the freedom of choice that the hon. Gentleman wishes them to have?

Mr. Field: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman: finds it amusing that I should put forward non-paternalistic views. In every contribution I make, I try to put forward libertarian rather than paternalistic views. He is right to say that that severe disadvantage can, to some extent, be overcome if one can find someone to lend money against that accrued value. As he is aware, that is not always possible.
We shall nod through these proposals. In Committee, we shall put down amendments to try and make them more effective, and the Government, with the help of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar—if he is allowed on the Committee—and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), will vote them down.
There are one or two other measures in the Bill which have already been welcomed by most speakers. There has been a general welcome that the 5 per cent. abatement is being restored—if only to half of those who have had their pensions abated, and for the fact that elderly women pensioners are to be treated equally with male pensioners.
The main part of the Bill, however, is about extending the statutory sick pay scheme from eight to 26 weeks. I wish to address myself to that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, this is a major measure of privatisation and I find it strange that the Government did not wish to tell the House that such was the case. They are proud of such measures and usually take great pains to tell us that another election pledge has been fulfilled.
Hon. Members and their constituents outside are puzzled to know why the change is taking place. The Secretary of State gave two rather vague reasons. He said,


first, that we must build on success, but he did not say on what success we would be building. Then he said that it "made sense". But does it?
The Minister will probably remember that on 3 November 1983 one of the Government's supporters asked whether the statutory sick pay scheme would be extended. The reply from the then Minister for Social Security was:
We have no plans at present to extend the scope of the statutory sick pay scheme.
He said that there had been discussions to extend it in a very small way but went on to say:
In the light of the comments received, we have decided not to proceed with its extension."—[Official Report, 3 November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 452.]
So in November 1983 we learned that there was to be no move towards extending the scheme.
It is of interest to go back to the original debate in Committee on the Bill which introduced the eight weeks statutory sick pay scheme. In that debate one of the Government's own supporters suggested that it would make sense not to have eight weeks but to have all the sickness benefit paid by employers. The then Minister for Social Security—not the one who is to reply tonight—gave three reasons why we should be rejecting an extension of the sick pay scheme. First, he said that, in the eight weeks scheme being proposed, about 90 per cent. of people drawing sickness benefit were covered, so why bother to extend the scheme? Secondly, he said that, even if the scheme were to be extended, there would be very few staff savings, and that was one of the original attractions in introducing the statutory sick pay scheme. Then we suggested a third reason, and the Minister replied:
Further, after eight weeks about 40 per cent. of the working population is no longer covered by occupational sick pay schemes.
We have heard a good deal tonight about the wonders of occupational sick pay schemes, but not about the important point about which the Minister for Social Security reminded us in Committee on the original Bill. He went on to say:
For that group it is more important that financial provision be tuned to their family circumstances. While it is true that supplementary benefit to top up SSP is available to employees who qualify, it is administratively simpler for us to pay sickness benefit and supplementary benefit together rather than to pay supplementary benefit only.
As though the issue should not be left there, later in the debate the Minister returned to the theme and told us:
If employers took over the whole of the sickness benefit scheme … or if we were to extend that period beyond eight weeks, there would be problems with employees' families. There has already been criticism of the sick pay scheme on the basis that it provides for flat rate payment, irrespective of family circumstances, and there is the fall-back on supplementary benefit. That argument would be much reinforced if we were to carry the period beyond eight weeks." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 December 1981; c. 156–7.]
They were the three reasons, which seemed so compelling, against extending the scheme beyond eight weeks. However, if I remember correctly, the Government put the Whips on and voted against the amendment that was orginally proposed by their own side.
Therefore, we are still left with the question why the measure makes such good sense now when it did not make sense when we originally considered the introduction of the limited period of statutory sick pay. The answer is in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill.

The Government have had to deliver some cuts. They have delivered them to the tune of at least £200 million. While the Secretary of State has been successful in presenting himself to the press as resisting Treasury cuts—he will be supported now, thank goodness, on both sides of the House, in resisting social security cuts—this appears to be one cut that he has willingly delivered to the Treasury.
Therefore, the reason why we are debating this major extension is not that it will be better for our constituents, not that they will get a better deal, but that the Government are making a further reduction in social security provision. The Minister for Social Security shakes his head. I shall listen carefully not only to what he says now but to his replies to some of the other questions to which he will have to address himself when he winds up.

Mr. Newton: I shall say more about his matter, so I shall not go into the details now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is always very fair, will acknowledge that family circumstances have been somewhat altered by the abolition today of child dependency additions to short-term benefits.

Mr. Field: The circumstances have been altered to some extent. The Minister has some cheek to get up and refer to abolishing additions paid to claimants with children. He says that the situation is now less rough on them than it would have been had that cut not been made originally. He gets full marks for cheek, but I do not think that he will fool many people outside the Chamber.
The Minister may have had time to consult the Library brief prepared by Julia Lourie for those participating in the debate. If he has done so, he will realise that the measure goes against one of the themes in the Conservative general election manifestos of 1983 and 1979. They said that the Conservative party was the party of the family, and favoured those with children compared with those without children. In the brief prepared for all hon. Members, Julia Lourie says:
Sickness benefit is neither taxable nor subject to deductions. Thus a married man receiving £60 would receive only £32·26 SSP net (c.f. £44·05 sickness benefit). But a single man earning £100 would receive £37·34 SSP as opposed to £27·25 sickness benefit.
So when the Secretary of State tells the House that it makes sense to make the change, it makes sense if the Government are committed to penalising those with children, but it is the exact opposite of sense for the Conservative party that fought two general elections saying that it was in the business of protecting families with children.
I should like to consider some of the other problems of the scheme. Any Government who had not introduced the measure in haste under pressure from the Treasury to save money presumably could have told us a little more about two other important aspects of the scheme. First, I should have thought that we would be told about the policing of the benefit, given the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West from the small businesses groups, which are finding an error rate of one in four payments. That is not much out of line with the figures published by the Government, giving an error rate of about one in six of sickness benefit claimants investigated.
I know that the Government figures include overpayments as well as under-payments, but under-payments are bad because, unless the inspector tells the person, the chances are that he will not know of the under-payment,


and no doubt over-payments are clawed back by employers, just as the Department of Health and Social Security claws back over-payments in benefit. If it had not been a rushed measure, and if it had not been mainly concerned with delivering some cuts to the Treasury, why, when he introduced the measure, did the Secretary of State not tell us a little about the extra policing for the scheme to ensure that people get the right introduced in the Bill?
There is an even more disturbing aspect to the Bill. If the Bill had not been a rushed measure, would not the Secretary of State have been able to tell us something about those who will be eligible for invalidity benefit after the six months of sickness benefit? How will they fit into the scheme? It is extraordinary that we should be presented with a major change in the welfare state, affecting not only those who have paid in for sickness benefit but affecting entitlement to invalidity benefit, while at the same time the Minister says that we shall have to wait until the Committee stage before we know who will be affected. If we are so told, this will be the first Committee stage of a social security Bill on which I have served since 1979 during which we shall have been given the details. I look forward to that experience.
The Secretary of State has misled the House by emphasising almost exclusively the pension changes in the Bill. Those changes are very modest. No hon. Member will vote against them, although some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members may well try to make them more radical.
We should, however, study the part of the Bill which concerns sickness benefit. It involves a major privatisation in the welfare state, introduced to effect savings to the tune of at least £200 million, and it will mean cuts for all too many of our constituents. Nevertheless, it has been introduced in such a rush that, despite his ability at the Dispatch Box, I suspect that the Minister for Social Security may well not be able to fill in all the details when he replies.

Mr. Tim Smith: My right hon. Friend has told us that there are 90,000 occupational pension schemes with 11 million members, and funds in excess of £100 billion. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has told us why, in his view, the extension of statutory sick pay from eight weeks to 28 weeks is fundamentally objectionable. Both proposals are of major importance. Yet only two Labour Members and one alliance Member are present. It is an appalling reflection on the Opposition that they should take so little interest in the Bill.

Mr. Kennedy: How many Conservative Members are present?

Mr. Smith: I shall confine my remarks to part I of the Bill. The Bill imposes obligations on occupational pension schemes. Such schemes are essentially voluntary arrangements. It is important to recognise that fact at the start of any debate on pension schemes, because, in theory at any rate, any occupational pension scheme may be wound up at any time, should the employer choose that it should. If we place too great a financial burden on occupational pension schemes, there is a real danger that many small schemes may be wound up.
Some people say—it has already been said from the Front Bench this evening—that the Bill provides too

little, too late. However, I believe that the Government were right to give pension funds the opportunity to put their own house in order, and that has been the main cause of the delay. The pension funds failed voluntarily to introduce revaluation of deferred pensions, so the Bill is now necessary. With one major exception, I welcome the provisions in part I. The exception relates to what I believe to be an important omission—the failure to introduce a comprehensive statutory framework for pension schemes.
Last February a consultative document, entitled "Greater Security for Rights and Expectations of Members of Occupational Pension Schemes", was published.
According to the consultative document, pension schemes are subject to the general law of trusts. The document noted that that gives rise to two main problems. First, there is lack of clarity of definition of legal rights and obligations of all the parties to schemes — employers, employees, members and trustees and their professional advisers. Secondly, trust law makes no particular provision for the day-to-day administration of pension schemes.
The document also noted that, in its 1980 report, the Wilson committee recommended that there should be a new legal framework for pension schemes—a pension schemes Act. In 1982, Professor Gower supported the case for reforming legislation in his discussion document. I therefore regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity to clarify the legal rights and obligations of the various parties to pension schemes. The only reason given by the Government in their consultative document was that opinion now seems to have moved substantially in favour of retaining trust law as the appropriate legal basis. No evidence has been given to support that assertion. I believe that it would have been much simpler and clearer if, in one Act of Parliament, each party to a pension scheme could find set out his rights and duties.
The consulative document said that the Government proposed to amend employment protection legislation to require employers to inform employees of their pension rights and the extent to which they form part of their contract of employment. That does not appear in the Bill. I assume, therefore, that it is a matter for the Department of Employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend, in his winding-up speech, will say when the change will be made. Subject to that important reservation I welcome part I.
The 5 per cent. revaluation of deferred pensions from 1 January 1985 is a compromise proposal, but it is about right. There must be a ceiling for funded schemes. A minority of the Occupational Pensions Board wanted 8·5 per cent., or the increase in average earnings if less; the majority wanted 5 per cent.; and, in a late bid, the Engineering Employers Federation said that it wanted 3 per cent. At 5 per cent., or the increase in prices, the Bill provides the right amount.
The important thing is that the principle is right. In the past, stayers have been advantaged at the expense of early leavers. Employers have argued that they are in business to encourage people to stay, not leave. That may be so, but the Government must take a wider view of the consequences for mobility of labour. The Bill does that.
The transferability provisions are welcome for the same reasons. As I said in an intervention in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech, the key element missing from the Bill is the basis of calculation of transfer values. That is critical, and I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to reach agreement with the


actuaries. Nevertheless, I was glad to receive his assurance that, in the absence of such agreement, regulations will clearly set out the basis of calculations.
The disclosure and registration requirements are also welcome, because they will increase the accountability of pension schemes. In the Financial Times last week, Eric Short complained that only the pensions expert will understand the information provided. The same could be said of companies' disclosure and registration requirements, but nobody suggests that they should be changed for that reason. As with companies, published pensions information will be scrutinised closely by those who have an interest, and the accountability of schemes will increase accordingly. Many schemes will also provide simplified versions of their reports and accounts to members, as do many companies. Moreover, the consultative document made it clear that regulations will require schemes to provide members with individual benefit statements. That will be of special value because pension scheme members are often not aware of the precise benefits of their scheme.
The registrar's job will be similar to that of the Registrar of Companies. I wonder whether there might not be some administrative saving if the Registrar of Companies was given the job and became the Registrar of Companies and Pension Schemes.
In one article last week, Eric Short talked of the Government's proposals for radical changes for occupational pension schemes. In another, he spoke of
a mouse of a solution".
However, to complain that the Bill does nothing for existing early leavers is completely unrealistic. Apart from the restrospective nature of such a proposal, a huge cost would fall on employers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave no indication of what it would cost even to backdate these provisions to 1981. Making them open-ended would put an intolerable burden on employers. Bearing in mind the voluntary nature of schemes, I believe that the Government have gone as far as they could reasonably be expected to go. I welcome that.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past you have afforded me gracious patience when I have experienced difficulty with the procedures of the House. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for whatever reason, stated that only two Labour party Members and one member of the SDP were taking part in the debate. Any hon. Member who kept his eyes open and saw less than double would know that that was quite untrue. When do truth and untruth become distinguishable, and when is untruth permissible?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must accept responsibility for what he says. It is not for me to adjudicate on such matters. However, if the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wishes to make a speech, perhaps he will catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I add my personal congratulations to my right hon. Friend and my welcome to the Bill in which he is tackling the problem of the early leaver. There has been a widespread and serious problem about the early leaver and his unsatisfactory treatment, and it was right to deal with it.
By the same token, it is disappointing that the pension fund industry was so unwilling to address itself to this problem and that it was so dilatory in its response to the report of the Occupational Pensions Board in 1981. Despite multiple and various proddings, the industry refused to come forward with constructive suggestions for a change. Indeed, according to a report from the National Association of Pension Funds, in 1982 82 per cent. of private funds were still granting no increase on deferred pensions. Far from proposing constructive reforms the industry indulged in a curmudgeonly and graceless rearguard action against constructive changes proposed by others—for example, the Centre for Policy Studies.
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing his inquiry into provision for retirement; on insisting that these issues should be thoroughly scrutinised and addressed; on the open manner in which he conducted the inquiry, which ensured that the views of the public as well as the pensions establishment were heard; and on pressing ahead with the introduction of this legislation.
The improved deal for early leavers embodied in the Bill is an elementary act of justice. It will also be of major economic benefit. In so far as it removes one of the principal impediments to labour mobility it will tend to make the economy more flexible, responsive to change and innovative, and over time it will help to generate more jobs. In passing, I express the hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will take his cue from my right hon. Friend and act to remove rent control, the other major impediment to labour mobility.
Two major uncertainties loom over the Bill. The first is the basis for transfer values. One reason why early leavers have been in such an unsatisfactory predicament is that their benefits have been cut in two ways simultaneously—by the conservative calculations of the actuaries of both the fund from which they were departing and the new employer's fund.
There are genuine difficulties in arriving at an agreed basis for transfer values. The age structure and other circumstances of each fund may vary considerably, and there is large scope for different assessments of future prospects for inflation, increases in earnings and returns on investment. The members of the actuaries' profession, who are a clever and a conscientious breed of men, may be more prone to draw attention to the complexities and difficulties in arriving at an agreed basis than to put forward a basis for a ready and liberal assessment of transfer values, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may once again be fairly vigorous in encouraging a concentration of minds. It would be good if the basis upon which transfer values are calculated were agreed relatively soon so that Parliament can understand the full circumstances for which it is legislating.
The second major uncertainty that looms over the Bill is, as my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) said, the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the tax treatment of pension funds. The Chancellor should not be casting around for new burdens to lay upon pension funds. He should be concentrating on reducing inflation, because that has wrought havoc to the position of early leavers. If the Government are to require funds to revalue deferred benefits to take account of inflation, it is the more incumbent upon the Government to reduce inflation. Therefore, the Chancellor should concentrate on limiting


public expenditure, not increasing taxes. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the practical maxim of Marie Stopes: it is more important to turn off the tap than it is to mop up the bath water.
If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduces a more unfavourable treatment for pension funds, I fear that he will undermine and make a mockery of the reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Moreover, he would be spiting himself and his successors. If he taxes lump sum pension benefits he will strike a blow against the private investor. That is presumably not his wish; it is certainly in contradiction of other purposes. If, in other ways, he makes the tax treatment of pension funds less favourable, he will add to the burdens on employers, making it more expensive for them to achieve equivalent pension benefits for their staff. He will almost certainly end by increasing the pressures on public expenditure and increasing the demands on the state earnings-related pension scheme. He will also make it much harder to extend personal and portable pension schemes.
If I have one regret about the Bill, it is that my right hon. Friend has not chosen to take a decisive step forward to create a framework in which there can be the option of personal and portable pensions for everyone. The benefits of that would be great, and perhaps I could find common ground with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in recognising that personal and portable pensions would tend to make for greater choice and responsibility. They would be valuable in encouraging recognition by the individual that his interests should be identified with the profitability of enterprise. They would help to promote self-employment and small businesses, to which we must look in the future, not least for the generation of the new jobs that we need.
In my view, many purchase schemes are preferable, given the non-inflationary conditions which it is the duty of the Government to provide, in that they do not involve expectations and promises of pension benefits that have not yet been earned. That is safer and healthier.
We should in this debate consider our broad philosophy on pension provision and our expectations for the future in pensions. The post-war national insurance legislation, deriving from the Beveridge report, was based on the proposition that it is the role of the state to provide against destitution, to ensure that the individual is not destitute, but that it is not the role of the state to provide or guarantee a higher standard of living. However, the National Insurance Act 1959 introduced graduated pensions, and the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 introduced the earnings-related scheme. Between them, they marked a clear change and the implementation of a different approach—one that said that the state should provide more amply.
In our debate, we should recognise at least two possibilities. One is that the state earnings-related pension scheme presupposes an economic performance by this country over the coming years that we have no right to assume. We should not have excessive confidence that that will take place. Secondly, we should recognise that there will be—there already are—structural changes in the pattern of work. It may become an anachronistic view to suppose that final salaries are necessarily peak salaries. For those reasons, we should at least question whether we should expect the paternalistic approach, whether state or corporate paternalism, to continue.
We should do our best to make sure that we make a success of the state earnings-related pension scheme. We should, with the new flexibility and the reforms that my right hon. Friend wishes to introduce into occupational pensions, accept that they will play an improved and valued role in the provision for retirement. It is also right to recognise that there is a basic function of the state—to ensure that there are stable financial conditions. It will be as well if my right hon. Friend proceeds to introduce personal and portable pensions and provide a framework in which there can be maximum individual responsibility, in which citizens can freely and in their own responsibly chosen ways make provision for their retirement.

Mr. John Watts: The principle of protection for the value of deferred pensions and the extension of the right to a fair transfer value will be as widely welcomed outside the House as they have been in the Chamber. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will recognise that translating that principle into practice is a complex matter. Witness to that is the complexity of the Bill's schedules, some of which I tried to understand, with little success, earlier today. Therefore, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that discussions with the actuarial profession are continuing. I am saying that not just because I am an adviser to the Institute of Actuaries, but because it is important that the implementation of these principles should not be hampered by any technical flaws in the legislation.
If I had one criticism of the proposals, it would be directed towards the proposed register and registrar. I am not sure why we need to have a new bureaucracy and why it is not possible for the Occupational Pensions Board to undertake certain necessary additional functions. I remain to be convinced that the register, as distinct from the extension of rights to information for members, will bring benefits that are commensurate with either public expenditure costs or the compliance costs that will all on pensions schemes.
The Bill makes a valuable contribution to the protection of pension rights, but, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, this will not be without additional costs. Therefore, I add support to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who urged my right hon. Friend the Chancellor not to make changes in the tax regime that will undermine the valuable work of this legislation in enhancing and improving pension rights.
Any of the proposed changes in tax treatment, over which there has been speculation, will necessarily be to the detriment of pension benefits or make pension provision more costly. However attractive in the short term it may appear to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suck off some money from pension funds, such a view would be short-sighted and in the longer term the burden on the social security system could be considerably increased if the result were to discourage employers and employees from making adequate provision for retirement.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Whatever may have been said earlier, accurately or inaccurately, about the number of Opposition Members present during the debate, it is a pleasure to be the fourth consecutive Government


supporter to be called. No doubt this is the pattern that we are likely to see in the future, but it also reflects the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends for this important but not very controversial subject.
I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said in sounding a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the adverse consequences for pensions and pension funds of any attempt to change their taxation treatment.
I address myself briefly to part I, for which the ground has been well prepared by the Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the consultation process which has been gone through, as a result of which the Bill contains very few surprises. I hope that that will make the task of the House in considering it a light one.
The Bill contains measures which are most welcome and which are in the interests of the members of occupational pension schemes, especially early leavers. I endorse the concern which was expressed for that group by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). Their rights are improved in a number of ways, all of which are desirable, but, as has been pointed out, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The cost of these improvements has been estimated at between 1 and 2 per cent. of the payroll, and it is employers who will bear that cost. To that extent the effect of the Bill will be to increase employment costs, and thus it may represent an influence, albeit a marginal one, in the direction of higher unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's reference to higher real wage costs as a cause of unemployment cannot be ignored. The possibility must also exist that some smaller employers will choose not to offer occupational pension schemes.
Looking at the specific items in the Bill, a provision to extend entitlement to preserve benefits to early leavers under the age of 26 but with five years' service is sensible. The revaluation of deferred pensions by 5 per cent. or the increase in prices is also very much in the interests of early leavers. But it must be recognised that many employers are worried about the cost of this provision. However, it will force them to make a more rational assessment of how the burden of paying for pension rights should be allocated. For far too long the absence of these rights for early leavers has been the lifeline through which employers have been able to fund the cost of their pension schemes.
The Opposition's argument that the 5 per cent. level is too low is quite ludicrous, bearing in mind that they presided over a period of Government with very high rates of inflation during which no attempt was made to look after the position of early leavers. Furthermore, the suggestion that the provisions could now be backdated to 1981 is another example of how the Opposition wish to support an apparently attractive amendment, the costs of which would be enormous and would be borne by employers, and the only direct effect of which would be to destroy other people's jobs. Once again we see the Opposition defending the privileged people who are already in secure work, as they are members of occupational pension schemes, at the expense of the unemployed. This will be seen right across Opposition policies. They are likely to damage the interests of unemployed people.
I welcome unreservedly the requirements in clause 3 and schedule 2 for the wider disclosure of information about pension schemes to members and prospective members. For far too long information has been limited and too difficult to obtain. The wider scrutiny which should result from the greater disclosure of this information will be beneficial.
One consequence of that scrutiny may be to uncover inadequacies in the record keeping and administration of some existing schemes. I note the comment of the Occupational Pensions Board about that in the advice that it gave to the inquiry earlier this year.
The only note of caution that I would sound is about the complexity of the subject and the difficulty which some lay people may have in understanding some of the information which will be made available. The benefit of providing that information may be lost for individuals if they cannot understand what it is they are being told. Those complications are a problem for the professionals as well.
A lesson may be drawn from the experience since the passing of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. More than 450 statutory instruments have been made. The Bill's provsions for the disclosure of information will again be effected by regulation. I merely express the hope that they will not be excessively numerous, so that members of schemes and their advisers can cope with the flood.
The Bill's provisions on occupational pensions are helpful to members. They will impose some costs on employers and may be complicated for laymen, but they are thoroughly desirable and they deserve the full support of the House.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am sorry that I have not heard the speeches in the debate other than the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am glad to be able to make a short contribution as "explication de vote".
In 1970 the Conservative party manifesto said:
We will ensure that everyone can take their pension rights with them when they change their job",
but after the election we lost our nerve. Now we have this Bill nearly 15 years later and, frankly, it is disappointing. I regret that I shall be unable to support the Bill in the Lobby on Second Reading.
The Bill follows the pusillanimous and misconceived Brimelow report, in that it places emphasis on preservation rather than transferability—which is the right answer to the early leaver's problem. It does too little for job mobility. It takes too long to tackle the unfairness of the treatment of early leavers. It chooses the 5 per cent. formula, which is neither natural justice nor actuarially defensible.
The Government should be helping early leavers now, not in the 21st century. They should be protecting rights which have already accrued in occupational pension schemes. The Government should have been ready to spell out now the terms for calcualting transfer values. I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend said on that subject. He still might do so and incorporate a fair formula for the transfer values in Committee. I hope that he will do so, but in the meantime I am bound to reserve judgment. The Bill does not do enough to protect the rights of the early leavers.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I hope that no one will mind if I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), if only because they form such a welcome contrast to the trail of praise of the Government which we have had from those Conservative Members who spoke before him.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) said that the Bill is the trailer in many ways for the Government's personal pensions provisions that are likely to come in later years and in a later Bill. The more one looks at the trailer and the more one sees the reactions of people to those proposals, once so welcomed and still spoken of by the Secretary of State as if nothing has happened since he first introduced them, the more one realises the likelihood that, as so often in motion pictures, the trailer may be exciting but the main feature will be extremely disappointing.

Mr. McCrindle: Wait and see.

Mrs. Beckett: We shall all have to wait and see, at least for another year.
When I say that the main feature may be disappointing I have in mind some of the reservations about the sort of proposals that the Secretary of State is laying before us as a trailer or that he seems likely to lay before us in the main Bill and which have already begun to be expressed since he gave us a description of those proposals in such glowing terms.
In its evidence in July the Institute of Actuaries made one or two pertinent remarks about the dangers of the kind of arrangements that the Secretary of State is discussing. For example, it suggested that in its view such arrangements would lead to less pension provision overall. Furthermore, and perhaps even more alarmingly, if that were not the case it suggested that that would be disadvantageous in another respect in that if the proposals result in a substantial increase in the number of people contracted out from existing schemes, contribution rates to the national insurance fund generally would have to be raised. Those are only some of a number of substantial criticisms that have been made in that document and many others.
That evidence was given to the Government's inquiry in July. That inquiry has not yet finished and I therefore wonder why the Government have chosen to bring this trailer—a part Bill—before us. Their full proposals will be delayed for at least another year. All Governments complain about the dangers of retrospectivity, but surely the Government could have announced their intentions now and allowed that much retrospectivity in legislating for the full scheme. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will be able to cast some light on the decision about timing.
We are interested not only in the information that will be disclosed to experts but in the idea of a brochure that will be more comprehensible to ordinary mortals. However, I wish to raise one matter, partly to discover whether I have understood the Government's proposal correctly and partly to ask the Minister for Social Security to deal with the alarm that I feel at my understanding of the implications of what the Government are saying.
If I understood the Secretary of State correctly—and that understanding certainly accords with what was said in the consultation document on occupational pensions—it

seems that no requirements will be made about disclosure for schemes that cover only individuals. Therefore, I assume that the disclosure provisions will not apply to the sort of personal pension proposals that we have been discussing.
Conservative Members may believe that a person with a personal pension will know all the necessary details, but most people recognise that it is likely that many of those who choose to opt for personal pensions will do so within the framework of a more general scheme provided by, say, insurance companies. Therefore, I hope to hear from the Minister tonight or in Committee what is intended in terms of the disclosure of information. We shall be alarmed if it proves that in this area, too, there will be less protection than is afforded under existing schemes.
Almost all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have concentrated on the part of the Bill dealing with occupational pensions. I wish to concentrate on the other part of the Bill.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) speak so fulsomely about the Bill and how wonderful it was, while not mentioning the proposals for invalidity pension or the changes proposed for statutory sick pay. I thought that the hon. Gentleman felt strongly about the interests of the sick and disabled. He has been known to lecture the Opposition about his concern for those people, yet he was so anxious to praise the Government tonight that he had not a word to say on behalf of the sick and disabled. Perhaps I should be charitable and say that it was because the hon. Gentleman wanted to paise the Government that he did not feel able to mention the proposals in the second part of the Bill.
Why are the proposals on invalidity pensions in the Bill? There is no need for primary legislation to restore the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit. When the abatements in unemployment benefit and invalidity allowance were restored in earlier years, it was done in the annual uprating.
If there is no need for primary legislation, and if the Government are so delighted about the fact that they have been able to restore the 5 per cent. abatement, there is no need for them to wait until the Bill has received the Royal Assent; they could restore the 5 per cent. abatement now, by means of a fresh uprating statement. Therefore, I should like the Government to tell us why, if they feel able to be generous to those on invalidity pension, they cannot be generous this year instead of next year.
I suspect that one reason why the Government are taking action in primary legislation is that, although they are pleased with what they are doing in restoring the 5 per cent. cut, they are taking away with the other hand, as is usual with everything that the Government give in social security. As with all social security under this Government, there is always another side of the coin which takes away a little more than the Government give.
The Secretary of State says that the decision to offset the earnings-related supplement to invalidity pension against the invalidity allowance is a logical step. Surely the earnings-related supplement relates to what the individual earned when he was able to work. The invalidity allowance, by contrast, specifically relates to what an individual has been unable to earn. It is intended specifically as a compensation for loss of earning power because of disability. That is why it is related to age. There can be no question of an offset. The two components relate


to two different areas. There can be no other excuse for the Government offsetting one against the other than a desire to make savings.
During the passage of the Social Security Act 1975, Conservatives pressed the Labour Government to be more generous and to make greater concessions on the earnings-related supplement. The late Brian O'Malley referred to the separate nature of the invalidity allowance and said that he would have had to make concessions had the invalidity allowance not existed to cover the different circumstances of lost earnings.
The Secretary of State admitted that many invalidity pensioners will not receive the full 5 per cent. Certainly, they will receive no recompense for the money that they have lost as a result of the cuts over the years. For example, someone who is now receiving £2·50 earnings-related supplement and £2·48 addition will, under the proposals, lose the whole of the £2·48. Someone on a similar earnings-related supplement plus a £7·50 age addition—the maximum—will lose £3. Unfortunately, it is typical of this Government that they take comparatively small sums from those who can least afford to lose them. That record is bringing them more and more into disrepute.
It is suggested that the current position of invalidity pensioners will be protected, although only in cash terms. That means that they could lose all the benefit related to inflation in next year's uprating, leaving aside that before then there might be other changes.
Sometimes I think that I have a nasty, suspicious mind. When I heard that the Government were to restore the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit, I immediately thought that that was because the Chancellor would tax it in the next Budget. I looked back through all the parliamentary answers, which assured us that that was too

difficult and out of the question. I thought that perhaps I was mistaken. I was gratified to have my faith—or lack of faith—in human nature on the Government Benches restored when I noted that the Secretary of State and the Minister were noticeably unwilling to give an assurance that invalidity benefit would not be taxable from the date of the Budget. Perhaps they are being even less generous than we supposed.
What will happen to people who are currently to be protected, although only in cash terms, if there is a break in their entitlement to benefit? The rules for means testing child dependant additions suggest that if there is a break in entitlement for as little as one day a week the person becomes a new claimant and loses whatever protection might be available under the Bill. I look for an assurance that that will not happen.
The final area of Government involvement with invalidity benefit is the earnings rule. Again, I seek information from the Minister. I am sure that the House is aware that there are two different earnings rules. One rule applies to women and the other to men. One rule is significantly more generous than the other and for once it is the one that applies to women. The Secretary of State said on 12 November that, although he intends to harmonise the two rules and to have one common rule, the details are still under consideration. I take it from the Minister's nod that the details are still under consideration. If he cannot give us the figures, perhaps he can tell us whether it is likely that the new earnings rule will be as generous as the more generous one that now exists. Is it likely to be a little lower in value or a little higher?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made:—

10 pm

Mrs. Beckett: The final part of the Bill deals with statutory sick pay, a subject on which Conservative Members were notably silent. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked why the Government are not taking more pride in this area. It is the privatisation of sick pay, and normally they are proud of privatisation. It is an election pledge that has been fulfilled. In another sense, it is not. When the Government boasted so much about privatisation they made it less than clear that it might apply even to welfare provision which is so long established. Why are the Government making the changes in advance of the publication of their review? I know that statutory sick pay will not be included in the review, but presumably the review will have some impact on those who receive it. Why are the Government rushing into activity? Are they doing so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead suggested, to make savings?
Why do the Government intend to relieve employers of the burden of paying national insurance contributions a full year ahead of their having to assume the burden of paying an increased period of statutory sick pay? I look to the Minister to give us an explanation as the Secretary of State singularly failed to do so. I hope that he will tell us how much this will cost.
The low-paid in particular tend to be much worse off when on statutory sick pay than they would be in receipt of sickness benefit. The proposal to extend the period of statutory sick pay goes contrary to the arguments advanced by Ministers not so long ago. I am aware that the Select Committee suggested at the time of the debates to which I have referred that an extension to 28 weeks might be suitable. However, I remind the Minister that it entered two important caveats, neither of which shows any sign of being met by the Government. First, it pointed to the difficulties of families with children which will lose all entitlement to additions related to the size of the family. It said that there should be substantial increases in child benefit sufficient to make up for the loss that such families would endure under statutory sick pay. Secondly, it recommended that the low-paid should receive normal earnings rather than, as now, a substantially reduced figure merely because they are low paid.
I hope that the Minister will explain the protection that is likely to be offered to employees after the extension of statutory sick pay. If he does not do so this evening, I hope that he will respond later. It has already been said that there are problems with the correct administration of the scheme. There is another problem which has not been identified so far in the debate. The Secretary of State said much about freedom in his introduction. As is often the case, it appears that in some areas the freedom which might be created is the freedom to lose out substantially. What freedom will be enjoyed by an employee whose employer does not pay statutory sick pay? The employer will receive refunds of contributions and he may receive them for a year. However, I understand that the Department has no power to force employers to make payments of statutory sick pay. Unfortunately, already the leeway in the administration of the scheme allows the possibility of substantial harassment in terms of the

requirements for notifying sickness, and so on. The fact that someone whose employer refuses to pay statutory sick pay can do nothing other than go to the ordinary courts is an alarming aspect of the scheme. It is even more alarming when one realises how greatly the Government intend to extend the provision.
This is a rather strange Bill. It is something of a hotchpotch. It is noticeable that Conservative Members including the Secretary of State have concentrated on the popular and what the Secretary of State called the exciting sections of the Bill, leaving the Minister for Social Security to mop up the disagreeable bits. In Committee, we shall try to ensure that the disagreeable bits as well as what the Secretary of State thinks are the more pleasurable bits are fully highlighted. It is for that reason that we will vote for the amendment.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am forced to observe that it is in the nature of the world that Secretaries of State take what they think are the agreeable bits and Ministers of State mop up what they think are the disagreeable bits.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): What about Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may well ask about the unfortunate Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. I shall think about that later. In spite of all that has been said, I do not regard the restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit in advance of taxation as a particularly disagreeable bit.
I am conscious of the fact that the House is anxious to make progress. At least one former Deputy Chief Whip who is not paying attention was particularly anxious to make progress. I hope that, in those circumstances and especially in light of the fact that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) kindly acknowledged that some of her points could be covered in Committee, my hon. Friends will acknowledge that some of their points could be covered at a later stage. I hope that the House will understand if I move fairly rapidly over the issues raised in the debate.
We shall consult about the extension of statutory sick pay, the invalidity benefit proposals and the detailed provisions in the regulations governing the various occupational pensions. We shall certainly ensure that the useful and important comments by my hon. Friends are taken fully into account.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked for various assurances on the pensions review. There is no question of us seeking in the Bill to pre-empt the pensions review. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's request that we should not pre-empt the pensions review is that we should also not engage in the interim in the business of giving undertakings about this, that and the other. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge this point. For example, before the latest public expenditure round, endless requests were made to say whether we would do anything about housing benefit. Once Governments or Oppositions get into the business of denying everything they are asked to deny, they are in an impossible position the first time they do not deny something. If we are not to pre-empt the conclusions of


reviews, we cannot go about denying everything that is put to us for denial, because it would make a nonsense of the basic proposition.
As has been clear from the debate, the Bill concentrates mainly on occupational pensions. A good deal has been said also about a number of other issues. As a number of hon. Members have observed, the statutory sick pay scheme is being extended from its present eight weeks to 28 weeks. Much of the detail of that extension which has not hitherto been discussed in detail with employers will be set out in regulations. We want to ensure in resolving the details that we get the views of organisations representing employers and employees.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) mentioned the linking rules for invalidity benefit. The hon. Members for Derby, South and for Oldham, West raised the point of the contrast between the two and eight-week linking rules for periods of sickness. Those points clearly need studying, and we shall certainly consider them in the process of refining the proposals that we shall seek to bring before the House in due course.
It must be recognised—I want to emphasise this—that employers have demonstrated, and that is what made us move towards the extension, that they can operate statutory sick pay successfully. They deserve considerable credit for the way in which they have done so.
It now seems sensible to move forward to rationalise the arrangements for sickness benefit, in the broadest sense, so that employers are responsible for the first six months in virtually all cases except for those who fall sick while unemployed, or those who are self-employed who will not be covered by the statutory sick pay scheme. The Department then takes on responsibility for the longer-term sick in the shape of the invalidity benefit scheme.
We recognise that employers will be caused some extra work. It is partly in recognition of that that we make the proposals, upon which the hon. Members for Derby, South and Oldham, West commented, for compensating employers on the liability for national insurance contributions on existing SSP a year in advance of the proposal to extend SSP. Employers will not pay contributions for the extended SSP scheme.
That is sensible, for two reasons. First, it recognises that there are costs for employers and, secondly, as I said during the debate on the national insurance regulations late at night some time last week, a reduction in national insurance contributions is one of the ways in which the Government can foster the creation of jobs. Although in that context £40 million is a modest sum, it is another gesture in the direction which we believe to be important of trying to keep down employers' overheads so that there will be more jobs. That is the Government's fundamental objective.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister says that there will be job advantages because employers will pay less in national insurance contributions. As employers will be paying sickness pay, there will be no decrease in their costs. Where is the gain for jobs?

Mr. Newton: There will be a reduction in the overheads borne by employers. The hon. Member must remember that the full amount of SSP paid out is reimbursed to employers through the national insurance fund. Over and above the full reimbursement of what

employers pay in SSP, they will no longer have to find £40 million for contributions which they would otherwise have had to find on that SSP paid out.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about this proposal as if it were a great public spending saving measure in terms of reducing the amount paid to people who are sick, I should make it clear that the saving of expenditure on national insurance sickness benefit, which is of the order of £200 million, is matched by the £270 million of SSP paid out and reimbursed.
The major difference between the two is made up—there are some more complicated calculations with which I shall not weary the House at this stage—of the extra tax paid on SSP which we expect to be about £70 million.
It will not escape the observation of the House having given those figures, that this is not, in any sense, a cut in the amount of money that people receive in the form of help when they are sick. There are redistribution effects, some of which have been touched upon, but in the large majority of cases, so far as we can judge—it of course depends to some extent upon whether people have adult dependants—the effect will not be as adverse as the hon. Member for Oldham, West gave the impression that it would be. It is a little difficult to make those comparisons in detail at this stage, because the rates of SSP and the rates of DHSS sickness benefit are out of gear. SSP rates go up in April while DHSS benefit rates went up today. At the moment it is true that for a married couple, or a man with a dependent wife, the rate of statutory sick pay is slightly lower than he would get, as of now, on DHSS sickness benefit. On the other hand, that position will be reversed next April, at which point he will be getting slightly more on SSP, on our expectations of the uprating of SSP, than he is currently getting on DHSS sickness benefit.
The effects are more complicated than the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. It should also be recognised that, while single people in the lower-paid ranges are likely to be better off, most people in the lower bands of earnings, attracting the lower rates of statutory sick pay, are much more likely to be single people, especially young single people without dependent wives or husbands, or alternatively they will be people who are themselves dependants, that is to say, who are themselves spouses of somebody who has earnings and therefore would not qualify for an adult dependency addition, even if they were on DHSS sickness benefit. That may have sounded complicated. It is indeed complicated. I hope that we shall be able to explore it rather more in Committee than we have been able to do this evening.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister is telling the House that the Government are not breaking their election pledges to pay the families by saying that it is not so much families who will be made worse off under the measure but young people, especially young single people, will be put in a more advantageous position. Is not that somewhat ironical, in that frequently at question time Ministers tell us that the rates paid to younger claimants should be cut because of the incentives to work? If the Minister argues successfully on the family front, he defeats himself on the other front.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that there is too much of an issue in regard to incentives to work when we are talking about short-term pay for sickness. That is an issue


which can be seen as much more significant in relation to supplementary benefit for the unemployed, and is a much wider argument than we can sensibly engage in at this time of the evening.
I am conscious that the House wants to move fairly rapidly to a decision on the Bill. However, I want to say a few words about two significant useful improvements that we are introducing.
The first increases the pensions payable to some of the oldest members of the community. From November 1985, we intend to increase the rate of the over-80 pension paid to married women. All married women who qualify for this special non-contributory pension at the lower rate, which is £12·85 from today, will then be entitled to the standard rate of £21·50 at 1984 benefit levels. That is a small but long overdue rationalisation of the non-contributory retirement pension scheme for pensioners over 80 and will end an unfairness between elderly married women and other elderly people.
The effect of the change will to to top up the pensions of those few married women of 80 or more who receive a lower rate category C pension to the standard rate of category D pension. It means that all people over 80 who satisfy the residence test, which we have also rationalised this week, will now receive the same amount of non-contributory retirement pension.
With regard to the points raised on invalidity benefit, I shall not attempt to rehearse the grounds of the 5 per cent. abatement, except to make it clear to the House that the question of taxation remains for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but neither I nor my right hon. Friend have said that the question of taxation will be abandoned. On the contrary, it remains the view of the Government in principle that taxation of invalidity benefit is right. [Interruption.] It has been common ground that benefits of this kind should be taxable. That has been common ground between both Front Benches for a long period. [Interruption.] My understanding was that it had been accepted by the Opposition Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend has said that two further changes will be added in Committee, and there has been some reference to them. First, duplication between invalidity allowance and the earnings-related additional component or guaranteed minimum pension under an occupational pension scheme will cease. The point is that when invalidity allowance was introduced in 1971, it was intended to provide extra financial help, as the hon. Lady said, to those who became chronically sick early in their working lives. But the thinking behind that was that they would not be able to build up earnings-related pension rights for later in life. As a result of the changes that have been made, since 1979 it not only has been possible for invalidity and retirement pensioners to get an extra earnings-related element in their pension—the additional component—but in practice they have visibly shown their ability to do so by doing so. In other words, those rights have started to come into effect. We feel that those two additions to invalidity benefit and retirement pension are broadly for the same purpose. Therefore, we think it reasonable and sensible to deal with the overlap between them. That is a logical change.
I was asked for these figures. We estimate that 375,000 existing invalidity and retirement pensioners who receive both invalidity allowance and additional component or GMP will be affected. Their loss will vary between a few pence and the maximum invalidity allowance of £7·50, but

for the majority it should be a relatively small loss, and in any case we shall make transitional arrangements to ensure that no existing invalidity or retirement pensioner has his benefit reduced when the change comes in.
As the hon. Lady knows, the second proposal relates to adult dependency additions. She rightly identified the extent to which there is a rule that discriminates against women. We think it right to move against that discrimination, although we are not compelled to do so by the EEC directive. I hope that we shall at least have the hon. Lady's assent to move against that discrimination. I cannot give her the concrete undertaking that she sought that the rule will be no less generous than the existing rule for men in relation to their dependents partly because there are some injustices in the present position and some doubts about how far the present rule can be seen as a realistic test of dependency. However, we are giving further thought to precisely how that should be done and I hope that we shall be able to consult about that, too, as I am sure the hon. Lady wishes as well. I cannot give an absolute undertaking at the moment, but we shall consider what she said.
I am sorry—perhaps I am not—that my speech has been rather a rattle through several complicated points. I hope that I have dealt with some of the issues that were raised and I look forward, if that is the right phrase, to discussing them further with the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Oldham, West and, who knows, the hon. Member for Birkenhead in Committee. Meanwhile, I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 217.

Division No. 19]
[10.22 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dubs, Alfred


Benn, Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alex


Blair, Anthony
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michae


Caborn, Richard
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gourlay, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.


Conlan, Bernard
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cowans, Harry
John, Brynmor


Craigen, J. M.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Leighton, Ronald






Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Robertson, George


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Loyden, Edward
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Hugh
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michie, William
Strang, Gavin


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Nellist, David
Tinn, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redmond, M.
Mr. Allen McKay and


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Sean Hughes.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Grant, Sir Anthony


Alton, David
Greenway, Harry


Ancram, Michael
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Harvey, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Cartwright, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hickmet, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hooson, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Howells, Geraint


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Fletcher, Alexander
Hunter, Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jessel, Toby


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Johnston, Russell


Fox, Marcus
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Freeman, Roger
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Gale, Roger
Kennedy, Charles


Galley, Roy
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kirkwood, Archy


Glyn, Dr Alan
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Goodlad, Alastair
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Gow, Ian
Knox, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lang, Ian





Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacGregor, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spencer, Derek


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, John


Malone, Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Mellor, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wainwright, R.


Neale, Gerrard
Walden, George


Needham, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Watson, John


Onslow, Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Osborn, Sir John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Pollock, Alexander
Woodcock, Michael


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Proctor, K. Harvey



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Noes


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Tony Durant.


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown incurred in consequence of the provisions of the said Act, including any increase attributable to those provisions in sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

SOCIAL SECURITY

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under the Social Security Act 1975, are to be taken as paid towards the cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of fees paid to the registrar of occupational pensions schemes.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State For Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Limit on Deficit Grants) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
Following the decision of the House on Friday to allow three hours to debate this order and the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1984, it might be helpful if at this stage I briefly describe the effect of both.
The purpose of the draft Coal Industry (Limit on Deficit Grants) Order is to increase the maximum amount of deficit grant which the Government may pay to the National Coal Board. The Coal Industry Act 1983, which was considered by the House last year, provided in section 2 that the aggregate of deficit grant paid in the finacial years 1983–4, 1984–5 and 1985–6 should not exceed £1,200 million. Provision was made, however, for this limit to be raised in one or more stages to £2,000 million by order, subject to affirmative resolution of the House. The order before the House in draft would increase the limit to £2,000 million, the maximum amount permitted under the 1983 Act.
It is important that I should explain why, less than a year after the 1983 Act became law, and only half way through the period which the Act was intended to cover, the Government are seeking the agreement of the House to this extension of the power to pay deficit grant.
As the House will be aware, the NCB made a very much larger loss in 1983–4—a loss of £875 million, in fact—than had originally been anticipated.
The circumstances in which this loss arose were investigated by the Energy Select Committee of the House in February this year, and were explained in the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 4 June.
The strike and overtime ban in the industry increased the NCB's loss by £197 million. A further £143 million resulted from additional provisions which the the board was obliged to make to cover the costs of putting right subsidence damage, following the emergence during the year of a serious under-provision in the north Notts area of the board. The remaining £535 million of the board's loss in 1983–4 reflected underlying imbalance in its trading position—the twin problems of overproduction in relation to market demand and of the tail of high cost pits whose operating losses represent a heavy burden on the industry as a whole.
The Government concluded that, because the reserves on the board's balance sheet were already negative at the start of the 1983–4 financial year, there was no alternative but to meet the board's deficit in full. If the Government had not done this, the extent of the board's insolvency would have increased, which might in turn have cast doubts on the propriety of continued lending to the board from the national loans fund.
The Government have also sought provision, in the main Estimates for this year, for £526 million to cover the board's loss in 1984–5. The projection of the board's loss for this year was made in March. It took no account of the

strike, which at that time had only just begun, or of the immense damage which we now know it has done to the NCB's finances and prospects.
Payments of deficit grant are made monthly by my Department to the National Coal Board. The total payment of deficit grant made since the beginning of 1983–84 is £1,077 million. Therefore, there is little room within the ceiling of £1,200 million under the 1983 Act for payments to continue. That is why the Government are seeking the agreement of the House to an increase in the ceiling. A note to the summer Supplementary Estimate drew the attention of the House to the fact that an order would be made to increase the ceiling on the amount of deficit grant which could be paid to the board.
Although the order is not a direct consequence of the strike and was foreshadowed by the Government some months ago, it will at the same time make it possible for the Government to meet part of the additional losses which the NCB will incur, and has incurred, in 1984–85 because of the strike. As hon. Members may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House on 12 November, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), that it was the Government's intention to present a winter Supplementary Estimate for an additional £607 million in deficit grant to the NCB for consideration by the House. The House will have a later opportunity to consider that Supplementary Estimate. I would wish only to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Supplementary Estimate would take the aggregate amount of deficit grant payable to the board since the beginning of 1983–84 to the full amount of £2,000 million permitted by the order that we are considering today.
I cannot at present estimate with any precision how large the NCB's loss for this year will be. It depends upon factors such as when the strike will end and how quickly production can be restored, but present signs are that the whole of the £607 million, which the Government have said that they will seek in a winter Supplementary Estimate, will be needed. During the two years 1983–84 and 1984–85, the NCB is likely to require at least £2 billion simply to meet its losses on revenue account. That is the extent of the seriousness of the position of the coal industry today.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Why are the Government rewarding the appalling irresponsibility of the National Union of Mineworkers during the past nine months by suggesting that we pay this money?

Mr. Hunt: The order underlines once again, as we have always sought to underline, how desperately serious the position is. It must be unprecedented for an industrial concern in Britain to lose £2 billion in two years. If the National Coal Board were a private sector company, such losses would have forced it out of business years ago.
The underlying reasons for the industry's plight have been plain for many years and were examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission 1983. The facts are, as no doubt my hon. Friends will point out during the debate, that the industry is producing far more coal than it can sell profitably. It is producing coal from a tail of high-cost capacity whose losses are a heavy burden to the rest of the industry, and that is a major factor in the present dispute.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend understand that some of us have a great sense of frustration at the fact that we are now cutting £39 million from student grants, and that we have cut £350 million from necessary housing improvements—many sacrifices are being made by people who have no right to expect to make those sacrifices—to keep a strike going and, as my hon. Friend says, to keep going an industry which is over-producing, over-priced and over-manned? How do we explain that to our constituents?

Mr. Hunt: I acknowledge that this order will enable the industry to keep going. However, it will not enable the strike to keep going. The Government must support the working miners and seek to point out to the country that we cannot possibly carry on with the level of losses which the Coal Board is suffering. Fundamental to this strike, and to the reason for its perpetuation, is the insistence of the president of the NUM on an unprecedented demand which no president of the NUM has made before, which no NCB has ever conceded and which no Government could possibly concede. It is that uneconomic pits, no matter how uneconomic, should be allowed to carry on and to extract coal until the last ounce has been taken out of the pit. I hope that tonight the cry from my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) that enough is enough will be heard by striking members of the NUM so that they speedily join the 35 per cent. of the NUM who are at present working because they believe in the future of the industry.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: What is the total outstanding debt of the Coal Board? So far, the Minister has mentioned only the debt outstanding for the past two years.

Mr. Hunt: I shall give that figure during the debate.

Mr. Jack Dormand: The hon. Gentleman appears to be leaving the figures. Do they include the £5 million that is being set aside for the enterprise company in the coalfields? Labour Members place great emphasis on that, because in coalfields we want alternative employment, which we do not have. That is the basis of our argument. The hon. Gentleman is making great play, as are his hon. Friends, of the spending of vast amounts of money. Is not £5 million for such a purpose absolute peanuts? Should not that figure be greatly increased, and should it not be done tonight?

Mr. Hunt: The figures include the £5 million that has been set aside. That is a proper range of expenditure, and I should like to see the resources of the NCB enterprise company increased. I hope that the 150 inquiries that have been made so far by various people seeking to gain the support of the enterprise company will be responded to speedily and that we shall be able to see the company working to restore job opportunities to those communities. Lack of job prospects lies at the heart of some of the problems of the industry.

Mr. Dormand: The more inquiries, the less money there is to go round.

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I accept that, but I should like to see increased resources for the enterprise company, rather than see the waste of resources that is so infuriating my hon. Friends.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Why did the NCB go in for this strike four or five months before setting the company up? The company had its first meeting only on 30 October. Is this not like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted?

Mr. Hunt: This action has responded to the concerns expressed by communities faced with the problems of closure. Rather than decry the notion, I should like hon. Members on both sides of the House to respond to the setting up of the new company. These things take time and must be done carefully. The chief executive must command the respect not only of hon. Members but of those involved in the industry.
By some curious coincidence, I now have the figures at my finger tips. The limit on National Coal Board borrowing at present, established by the Coal Industry Act 1983, is £5,500 million. Borrowing at present amounts to a total of £4,600 million.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister confirm that some £450 million of what he describes as the "losses" of the National Coal Board represent interest payments on the loans to which he has just referred and therefore are not attributable to the miners in pits which perhaps are difficult geologically or perhaps have been starved of investment? The hon. Gentleman's political master, the Secretary of State for Energy, has tried to explain that each of the miners in what he calls uneconomic pits is costing £130 a week to the Coal Board, but does that not include those interest payments? The hon. Gentleman also gave a figure for subsidence in such areas as Nottingham. Does that include pits which have closed down in the past? Is not his figure for uneconomic pits made up of factors over which miners have no control?

Mr. Hunt: It is very difficult to bridge the commonsense gap between the majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). Every business which functions efficiently borrows to invest in new machinery and new possibilities and has to pay interest on that debt. Of course it forms part of the figures. It may be an indication of why it is so difficult to overcome the distortions of the president of the NUM when he constantly reiterates the absurdity that we have the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world. We may have the best deep-mined coal, but we do not have the cheapest. The calculation that is done by the NUM president is very similar to the one that the hon. Gentleman has just made. It is to leave out depreciation, to leave out subsidence, to leave out interest charges, to exclude a range of normal businesslike charges and to reach a figure which purports to be the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world. But he leaves included in the Australian and American figures depreciation, interest charges and subsidence. Faced with that sort of logic, it is small wonder that we cannot bridge the gap between us. I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to try to explain the nonsense that he has just uttered.
The second order under consideration is the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1984. The reason for its introduction has been highlighted by the strike which is inflicting so much damage both on the industry and on striking miners themselves.
One effect has been to cause men who agreed to take redundancy, in many cases before the dispute began, but who failed for whatever reason to work normally through to their redundancy date, to lose out on redundancy benefits under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. This has come about because of the link, which has existed since the scheme's introduction, between entitlement to RMPS weekly benefits and eligibility for unemployment benefit. Men who found themselves disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for the duration of the dispute by virtue of section 19(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 also found themselves, as a result of the linkage, ineligible for RMPS weekly benefits.
My Department is aware of about 400 men who have lost entitlement to RMPS through having been disqualified or suspended from receiving unemployment benefit. Many of these unemployment benefit cases are subject to appeal, and obviously therefore I cannot tell how many men will ultimately be affected.
The rules governing unemployment benefit, as interpreted by the independent social security commissioners, apply to everyone, and the miners can be no exception. However, the Government have no desire to see miners who take redundancy penalised as a result of the strike. My right hon. Friend therefore announced on 25 May 1984 that amendments would be introduced into the redundant mineworkers payment scheme to enable men whose scheme benefits are affected during the period of the dispute to receive additional payments designed to compensate for RMPS basic benefit or pension supplement which, at the moment, they have lost. That is the main purpose of the modest amendment order.
The addition of a new subparagraph (g) to article 10 in the existing order will sever the link with section 19(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 for the future, and the new paragraph 10(6) will enable an additional lump sum to be paid to men who lost basic benefit or pension supplement before the coming into operation of this order. If the House approves the draft order, those sums will be paid as soon as possible after the new order comes into effect on 7 December. Consequential changes are made in article 5(2) of the existing scheme to ensure that the uprating of benefits for inflation is unaffected.
Finally, the meaning of "coking plant operator" in the 1984 scheme is clarified. Some hon. Members may recall that when the scheme was extended in 1980 to cover certain employees made redundant in the coke industry, the background was the desire to rectify the anomalous position whereby men made redundant at coking plants within the steel industry were included in that industry's redundancy scheme, while those employed at similar plants operated by the NCB were not covered by the RMPS. The purpose of the present clarification, in line with that original intention, is to eliminate any residual uncertainty regarding the meaning of "coking plant operator" and hence where exactly the limits on eligibility for the scheme fall.
I hope that the House will agree that the amendments which the draft order seeks to introduce are sensible in themselves and further evidence of the Government's continuing support for the coal industry. They are modest amendments affecting a relatively small number of people

at a relatively small cost, but they should remove what I know to be a considerable source of grievance among those affected.
I hope that by explaining the two orders briefly I have now given the House an opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at its conclusion.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Again, it falls to me to welcome another Under-Secretary of State to the Front Bench. I had the pleasure during the previous Parliament of welcoming the hon. Gentlemen's two predecessors. We did not always agree, but we respected the courtesy that they always showed and their readiness to consider the problems and anomalies that arose from orders dealing with the coal industry. It is my wish and I am sure it is the wish of my hon. Friends in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, that he will see fit to endorse the approach which I have tried to outline in my introduction.
I think, Mr. Walker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman should address me as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Eadie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the House appproves the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order, it will come into operation on 7 December, and the Under-Secretary claims that the amendments will make it easier for miners to qualify for benefits under the redundancy scheme.
I can confirm the Under-Secretary's explanation, because my understanding of the issue is the same as his. Indeed, we raised the matter in the previous coal order debate in the Chamber. History has prompted the order, because, before the commencement of the mining dispute, about 500 men had been given notice of redundancy. That figure is agreed by the Under-Secretary and by the union. However, because the period of notice given to those men extended into the strike, they were disqualified from receiving state unemployment benefit and denied weekly make-up benefit under the redundant mineworkers scheme. In some cases, the men were paid lump sum benefits on reaching their termination dates.
I wish to put on record a timely example of the difficulties that have been caused. Last weekend, I saw at my surgery a constituent who is a former employee of the NCB and was made redundant before the dispute commenced. As his notice ran into the strike and because he was a skilled worker, he was called to do safety work during the dispute, with, I understand, the agreement of the union.
My constituent's notice has now expired and he finds that he cannot get unemployment benefit and has problems getting other money that he believes is due to him. That is a little different from what the Under-Secretary told us. Perhaps it is an anomalous case, but can the Under-Secretary tell me the implications of the order for my constituent? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give an off-the-cuff answer, but perhaps he will do me the courtesy of writing to me.
The NUM initially tried to resolve the problems facing the 500 or so men to whom I referred earlier by making appeals to local tribunals against those men being refused unemployment benefit, but the appeals were unsuccessful.
I want the House to note that appproaches were made to the Government by, among others, some members of the miners' parliamentary group. Those approaches resulted in a written answer from the Secretary of State for Energy:
The Government have no desire to see miners who take redundancy penalised as a result of the strike. They therefore intend to introduce amendments to the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme to enable men whose scheme benefits are affected during the the period of the dispute to receive additional payments designed broadly to compensate for RMPS basic benefit and pension supplement lost. Such amendments are necessary because under the existing order entitlement to weekly RMPS benefit is linked to eligibility for unemployment benefit so that a man who is ineligible for the latter also generally loses entitlement to the former. A man's entitlement to lump sum benefit is not affected."—[Official Report, 25 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 580.]
I do not want to sound ungrateful, niggardly or even petty, but it is a long time since 25 May. We welcomed that approach.
The order makes provision for those NUM members who have been denied basic scheme benefit. They will be compensated by the payment of a lump sum.
I hope that I shall receive a favourable response from the Minister to my questions which seek clarification. The Minister was vague about when the compensation will be paid. When will the payments be made? People are due moneys. Under the terms of the order, the compensation does not appear to cover loss of unemployment benefit. In his reply of 25 May the Secretary of State considered that to be an anomaly which he wanted to put right. We think that the order should be extended to cover the unemployment aspect.
Another way to deal with the problem would be in unemployment benefit regulations, which could remove the exclusion for persons serving notice of termination prior to the commencement of an industrial dispute. My request is reasonable. The Government have already conceded that the estimated 500 men are the subject of an anomaly. In justice and equity our proposition is reasonable. These men should not suffer the loss of unemployment benefit as a consequence of an industrial dispute. We are talking of men who have served the industry for 30 or 40 years. In another place a former Prime Minister, the Earl of Stockton, said—I paraphrase—that miners are some of the best people on earth. He observed that the country needed them and that they were responsible for beating the Kaiser in the first world war. In the second world war they played their part.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With quite a few others.

Mr. Eadie: Yes, I accept that. However, I am paraphrasing what the Earl of Stockton said. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge the statement, let him challenge his right hon. and noble Friend. It was the Earl of Stockton who passed the compliment. He said that the country needed the miners then and that it would need them again. We are saying that unemployment benefit should be paid to those who are caught up in an industrial dispute.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Eadie: It certainly is not their fault.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is talk of patriotism, and in another place reference was made to the miners beating the Kaiser. What the Earl of Stockton did not say was that in 1940 some of the miners were engaged in the second world war or in their industry, which was essential.

Mr. Tony Marlow: They went on strike.

Mr. Skinner: Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the National Coal Board, seemed to miss the boat when it came to the second world war. He did not join the Army or the Air Force and he did not go down the pits. Instead of wrapping himself in the flag, he took a boat to the other side of the world. Some would say that he was dodging the column. He did not beat the Kaiser; nor did he beat Hitler. He looked after number one.

Mr. Eadie: Surely the House does not want to get heated on this issue. I was advancing an argument based on justice and equity. I am sure that the House will want to remedy the injustice that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggested that all that the miners did during the second world war was to go on strike. That comment was unworthy of him and he should consider withdrawing it.

Several Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Eadie: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman and I am not giving way to him.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Mr. Eadie: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian is not giving way.

Mr. Eadie: I move on to the limit on deficit grants order, which will come into operation a week later than the payments schemes order on 14 December. There will be an increase in provision from £1,200 million to £2,000 million, and the House will want to know the Government's plans for the coal industry. The miners' dispute is most costly and damaging. It is probably the most costly and damaging dispute that we have had in our history. The Minister referred to the cost, and that can probably best be illustrated by saying that it will equal about a quarter of the defence budget or about half the education budget. It is a scandal that the chairman of the Coal Board remains in office when at one time he described the dispute as a little local difficulty outside town. The Chancellor made the biggest guff when he talked about it being a worthwhile investment. Some little local difficulty; some worthwhile investment.
The Library figures on investment at 1983–84 prices confirm what I have stated for a long time in the House — that since 1979, during the Conservative


Government's term of office, not one new pit has been sunk. In an extractive industry like coal mining, that means inevitable contraction. The National Coal Board has acted on investment. I have cited approximate figures before. About 81 per cent. of investment in the coal industry occurs in the Yorkshire-Midlands Nottinghamshire area. That leaves 19 per cent. to be distributed between south Wales, Kent, parts of Derbyshire, Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland, Scotland and Cumberland, where mining has practically disappeared. Those areas have to fight for 19 per cent. of the investment.
I shall cite the investment figures in 1979–80 prices. Some of my hon. Friends may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this matter. Investment in 1979–80 —I must take some responsibility as a former Under-Secretary of State for Energy — was £32 million. In 1983–84 it was £31 million. That means a reduction of £1 million in investment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is not much.

Mr. Eadie: Is it not? The hon. Gentleman should listen to some more figures. Some of my hon. Friends from the north-east are listening to this. In 1979–80 there was £67 million investment in the north-east. It is now £39 million. There was also a reduction in investment in Nottinghamshire. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is receiving small thanks for the part that his miners are playing while working, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, during this dispute. In 1979–80 there was £78 million investment in north Nottinghamshire, which has now been reduced to £55 million. In south Nottinghamshire there was £55 million investment, which has been reduced to £27 million. That is the thanks the miners in Nottinghamshire are getting from the Government. There is a policy of less investment. If there is less investment, there will be a contraction of industry.

Mr. Nellist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the NCB report covering north and south Nottinghamshire, which states that the introduction of new technology will mean the removal of 44 per cent. of all miners' jobs in those two areas by the end of 1987?

Mr. Eadie: We in the trade union movement are always in favour of new technology. My quarrel with the Government is that they have not been sinking new pits to give us the advantage of that new technology. Other jobs, not necessarily associated with the mining industry, arise from that new technology.

Mr. Andy Stewart: With this lack of investment, why is the north Nottinghamshire coalfield the only profitable part of the NCB's coalfields in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Eadie: I give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). If there is no investment in Nottinghamshire there will be no new pits. The mining industry will inevitably contract, and that is the Government's policy.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Rubbish.

Mr. Eadie: I am not talking rubbish. I am giving the facts, and they are not my facts; they come from the Library.
I wish to finish by giving the investment figures for south Wales. In 1979–80 the figure was £52 million. Today, I am sorry to say that the figure is £24 million. That represents a massive contraction of the coal industry.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: There are still one or two Labour Members in Nottinghamshire. I should like to say to my hon. Friend that during 1979–80 we were thankful for the amount that he was responsible for investing in north Nottinghamshire because it allowed a number of big schemes to take place. However, I did not get to my feet to say that. I want to kill some of the rumours that come from hon. Members who do not know what the hell is taking place in Nottinghamshire. I wish that sometimes they would keep their mouths shut about what is happening in Nottinghamshire and leave it to those of us who know something about it.

Mr. Eadie: When my right hon. Friend speaks about the coal industry, Conservative Members should not giggle, because he knows what he is talking about. That is why he understood the point that I was making. If there is less investment in Nottinghamshire, or elsewhere, the coal industry will inevitably contract. That is why my right hon. Friend got to his feet. He more or less underlined the point that I was trying to make. [Interruption.] We shall not be sidetracked by the guffaws of Conservative Members.
During Energy Question Time today the Secretary of State talked about a ballot. I know the subject will be discussed during the debate. Those hon. Gentleman who managed to attend Question Time today will recall what the Secretary of State said. He claimed that the national executive of the NUM could order a ballot any time that it wanted. I want to put the record right. That is not true. The only body that can decide on a ballot is the NUM annual conference. It has decided at three separate conferences that it will not have a ballot. That is so, whether the hon. Gentlemen agree or disagree. It is not in the gift of the national executive of the NUM or of Mr. Arthur Scargill to decide on a ballot. The annual conference, or a special conference of the NUM, will decide that.
The Secretary of State has made some blunders during the dispute. I have a great respect for the Secretary of State, but he has been making statements that were unworthy of him. When we were talking about whether pits should be closed he said that the NUM wanted to keep pits open even if it meant mining mud. That statement was unworthy of him.
The Secretary of State must be aware, because it is on record, that in the negotiations that took place between the NCB and the NUM three areas of closure were agreed to. The first was geological; the second was safety; and the third was that, where a pit had limited reserves and it was expedient to close it, if it could be done by means of transfer to an adjacent pit, that would be done.
How can anyone talk about the mining of mud when already in the negotiations three reasons for pit closures have been agreed? To say that the NUM has not moved in the negotiations is a travesty of the facts. The NUM has moved, and it is a matter of public record. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members are so keen and enthusiastic about the details, they can find all the references in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a custom of the House that the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman speak for the same length of time? The Minister spoke for 22 minutes in putting forward a very complicated case. We have heard 28 minutes of waffle so far from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and not one minute of case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no power to impose a time limit in a debate such as this.

Mr. Eadie: It is clear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does not like what I have been saying.
I think that the Minister, at Question Time today, was guilty of trying to massage the facts in regard to strikers and non-strikers. To some extent he may regret having done so, because there are great areas of doubt about the figures that he mentioned.
The Government's policy of starvation and the NCB's policy of bribery are doomed to failure. There should be a clarion call from all parts of the House to the Government and the NCB. We know that there will be no mass return of men to work, so we should call for an end to this costly and damaging industrial dispute. We should call for it to be ended in the only way that it will end—round the negotiating table—and the sooner the better. We should urge the parties to get back to the negotiating table before Christmas, in the interests not only of the deprived miners and their wives and families but of the British nation.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am tempted to follow the last remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) by saying that, if one person would cross the Urals and the other would cross the Atlantic, perhaps the dispute would soon be ended.
I shall confine my remarks to the second of the two orders that the Minister introduced. Very real hardship is being done to a small but important group of people who have for many decades been the backbone of the mining industry. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the order before the House, because it is a real but belated recognition of a genuine problem. But I hope that he will agree that it does not solve the problem.
Many Conservative Members have the privilege of representing mining constituencies. Quite a lot of Conservative Members perhaps do not fully understand that a striking miner is not necessarily a violent miner. It is equally true that there is not sufficient understanding of the very real hardship that I wish to talk about.
A constituent came to me about 10 days ago in real distress. He is typical of several constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Littleton colliery is in my constituency, but the workers come almost equally from his and my constituencies. The south Staffordshire coalfield voted 73 per cent. against a strike. However, for the first three weeks of the strike, however much the mineworkers wanted to get into Littleton colliery and Lea Hall, they could not do so. There were scenes of almost indescribable violence and nastiness on the picket lines. Miners on those picket lines—not, I hasten to add, from Staffordshire—were filling polythene bags with urine

and throwing them at the police. There were many similar incidents that were utterly distasteful and nauseating, some very violent.
The police urged miners not to attempt to go into the collieries. In fact, during those first three or four weeks, about 12 people managed to get through the gates. However, as soon as the NCB was able to organise an adequate programme of bussing, a flood back to work—it was no drift back—occurred. Within a matter of weeks, the vast majority of miners were back, and now between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of those employed at those two collieries are working.
Many miners are nearing the end of their working lives, and of them a considerable number accepted voluntary redundancy. This problem is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and several other colleagues who represent mining constituencies. Those men took their voluntary redundancy and believed that they were accepting a package that included a lump sum, an entitlement to the redundant mineworkers concessionary payment scheme and unemployment benefit. It is important for hon. Members in all parts of the House to underline the fact that the lump sum payments that many of those people received were very modest. Indeed, one of my constituents had a sum of much less than £2,000.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only did those miners believe that they had a certain entitlement but that when they were interviewed by a representative of the NCB and persuaded to take the redundancy terms, they were told categorically the amount of payment that they would receive when they were made redundant?

Mr. Cormack: Indeed, they were. They were told in good faith, and they accepted the information in good faith.
However, the fact is, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as me, that my constituents and others, although they received the lump sum, have not received any other money since. That is an anomaly which the second of the two orders introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister goes some way to redress—but only some way. He cannot this evening—we accept this—with a stroke of his pen or by introducing an order from his Department make them entitled to receive unemployment benefit. Therefore, although the constituent to whom I referred and many like him will receive some benefit from the orders, they will not receive enough—and there is very real hardship.
I was approached by one constituent who had had to go to his bank for a loan because he had nothing to live on. I am sure that he will be given a loan, but he will have to pay interest on it. That is a total contradiction of what such men thought they were to get and what they are entitled to have. It flies in the face of logic and natural justice.
I am prepared to accept that the majority of striking miners, although I believe them to be wrong, are perfectly honourable and are standing by what they consider to be their principles. But whatever views are taken of striking miners, the men about whom I am talking were not striking miners. As soon as they could get through the colliery gates, they went in. They subsequently accepted their redundancy. They expected to receive a package, but that package has not been delivered.
I do not hold my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible. He has gone some way


towards redressing the problem, and hon. Members in all parts of the House should be thankful to him. Nor do I in any sense accuse my hon. Friends at the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security of bad faith. However, I urge that something be done about the matter. If the rules are being applied correctly, the law in this case is indeed an ass, and it is Parliament's duty to change that law so that these men shall have what they fully believed they were entitled to and what, in justice and equity, they are entitled to.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I well understand the human side of the case that my hon. Friend is making, but he is putting the case for men who, because they have worked in the mining industry, are suffering because of what is going on in the industry. What about people in other industries, who are losing their jobs and will get no compensation at all? The miners will get their compensation in due course. Why should they not have to wait?

Mr. Cormack: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has got it wrong. He is thoroughly confused. Two wrongs do not make a right. I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding. These people are the victims of an anomaly. Unless what I urge is done, they will never get the unemployment pay under the current rules.

Mr. Allen Mckay: Let us consider two men who are interviewed and given their notice at the same time. One accepts three months' wages in lieu of notice. He then becomes unemployed and receives unemployment pay and redundancy benefits. The other, if he serves out his notice and that notice terminates during a strike, is not unemployed, even though he was interviewed at exactly the same time. As yet, he does not receive unemployment pay or redundancy payment. He will now receive redundancy payment, but there is still the question of the unemployment pay.

Mr. Cormack: Indeed. I am talking about the deficiency that will remain after the order has been passed. There will still be the problem of unemployment pay. The situation is riddled with anomalies. Section 19 of the 1975 Act, to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks, states that unemployment benefit is not payable to those who have been involved in a trade dispute. However, these men have not been involved in a trade dispute. The adjudicating officers will say that they will be beneficiaries in the long term of the results of a trade dispute, but they will not necessarily be beneficiaries, because there is no formal agreement between the NCB and the NUM to backdate any subsequent wage increase to those who have left the industry. However one looks at the problem, the men are in real danger of being thoroughly penalised. I am delighted that my hon. Friend readily understands the anomaly.
I do not believe that there is any disagreement among those who know anything about the mining industry. I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood, who has more coal mines in his constituency than any other hon. Member, and for Cannock and Burntwood. We have worked together on these matters and have seen the men and those who have been trying to help them. We are anxious to help them and

believe that a manifest injustice is being done. I have today written to several of my colleagues in the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister about this matter. I intend to carry on pleading the cause until something is done.
The people of whom I am speaking are the backbone of the mining industry. In some cases they have given 40 years' service, many of them underground. They have picked up a derisory sum at the end of that time and are being denied their unemployment benefit. Although their Christmas will be made a little brighter as a result of the proper initiative taken by my hon. Friend tonight, there will still be gloom, real worry and real hardship among people who, by any definition, do not deserve it. I urge my hon. Friend to use his best endeavours. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security here. I urge him also to use his best endeavours to ensure that this great wrong is righted and that justice is done to this deserving section of the mining community.

Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that the Government will listen to the case that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), has just put. I am sure that the House agrees that he advanced a very persuasive argument. I hope that we get a proper response from the Minister.
I should like to refer to what the Minister said about the enterprise company that is to be established to assist in mining areas. He asked for a friendly response to the Government's measures. He will get a friendly response from us, but the whole thing should be on a much more ambitious scale. It is absurd to talk of £5 million to be spread all over the country. We could use the £5 million in my constituency and still have plenty more to do. The Government must think on an entirely different scale. I say that having had some experience in these matters.
My constituency was much involved with the establishment of British Steel Enterprise Ltd. We strongly favoured it, as it was a means of adding fresh investment and finance to what we could get from other quarters. We wanted to develop it to the maximum. We still want to sustain it, but one of our battles in the past five years has been to keep the very pattern which the Government have adopted and intend to apply to the coal industry. I am sorry to say that we fought a losing battle against the Government and the gentleman who was at that time the head of the British Steel Corporation — his name happened to be Mr. MacGregor. When we went on deputations to Mr. MacGregor or responsible Ministers, we were told that they could not be concerned with such matters, that they were concerned only with producing steel or coal. They were not concerned with what would happen to employment.
I cannot take Mr. MacGregor—or the Government, although they are a bit better than he is—as a name that will establish confidence, because it was Mr. MacGregor who wanted to run down the experiment in the steel industry. If it had not been for our objections he would have succeeded in abolishing it. Even so, what now prevails in the steel industry is a shadow of that which prevailed during the previous Labour Government. We want a full scheme for the coal industry. It should be on a far larger scale that £5 million. It will have to be if it is really to provide jobs in mining communities. The scheme in the steel industry should also be restored, as we are still


suffering from its rundown. Under Mr. MacGregor the rundown there was considerable. Instead of a peanut £5 million scheme which is apparently covered by the order, we want a full scale scheme for the coal and steel industries to provide the alternative jobs which will be necessary whatever happens in the coal industry.
The main issue in this debate is the coal dispute, yet apparently the Government will do nothing about it. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's speech illustrated, the cost of this dispute has been astronomical, and it has had national and international implications on society. The Government should be bending all their energies, imagination and efforts to trying to reach a sensible solution, yet apparently they are doing nothing of the kind.
As far as I can see, they have now come to the conclusion that nothing can be done at the negotiating table. It was not Arthur Scargill who left the negotiating table and said that he would not return. It was Mr. MacGregor. It certainly was not the mining representatives who broke off the last negotiations.
In my view, the Government have adopted this position at this moment because they believe that that is the way to end the strike. However, in many other debates the Government have come forward with their authoritative, sensitive understanding of the situation in the coal industry and told us that they know best how to deal with it. Each time they have said "Here it will end if only we take these measures", they have been proved wrong. They will be proved wrong again.
Even the combination of measures taken against the NUM — the measures taken on the picket lines, the money and the ministerial statements over the last few weeks that there will be no more negotiations—will not succeed in breaking the will of the NUM. I say that because, like most hon. Members, I judge by what is happening in my own constituency. My constituency has three or four pits, and there the strike is pretty well 100 per cent. solid, as it is in most of Wales.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South showed some appreciation of these matters. I urge the Government to think again. Despite what Ministers often reiterate, the strike is not broken because of intimidation. I am all against that, and I do not believe that it should be practised at the homes of miners. I am absolutely opposed to that. But, if the Government believe that the strike is kept going only because of intimidation, they have not attempted to discover the facts.
Such a belief is absolutely false in relation to my constituency. My experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and hon. Members throughout Wales is that when a few weeks ago a huge effort was made to get miners back into the pits, only a few did so. Out of the five miners who went to the main pit in my constituency three weeks ago, two are now on the picket line. They made that decision after they had been approached by striking miners who went to their homes to discuss the matter. They are now supporting the strike.
Those men went back to work chiefly because of the appalling distress which they and their families faced. No one wishes to minimise the great distress being felt. That is why the Archbishop of Cardiff spoke in such terms a few days ago, and what nonsense it is for the Government to try to brush aside those remarks as though they did not count.
The strike continues not because of intimidation or threats. There are three reasons why it continues: first, the solidarity of miners and the mining communities. That is the patriotism of the miners. That is what the Earl of Stockton was talking about in the House of Lords the other day. If anyone shows disrespect for that feeling of comradeship, I must tell him that, first, he does not understand this country, secondly, he does not understand the mining communities, and, thirdly, he is not fit to govern in these matters.
The second reason why the strike continues is that the miners believe what they are told by their leaders. They do so partly because their leaders were saying it for many months before the strike, and partly because of what happened at the beginning of the strike. That is what convinced them that what their leaders had been telling them for months past had much more validity than they had previously supposed.
What convinces them further is the Coal Board and the way in which it has been operated, and the utter failure of Mr. MacGregor to conduct his affairs properly. When it results in a man such as Geoffrey Kirk—a man who has served faithfully many bosses in the Coal Board and in the Government, and a man who has given his life, like so many miners, to the industry—finding it impossible to continue to work for the Coal. Board, or when, even worse, the Coal Board manager says that he will not need Mr. Kirk's services any more, what effect does the Minister think that that has? The conduct of the dispute by Mr. MacGregor and those associated with him—I am sorry to say with the backing of the Government—has been an outrage. The Minister probably knows it. At least he was not responsible for appointing him to the job.
During the past few days we have had a direct conflict of testimony between what was said at the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy about guaranteeing redundancies and what Mr. MacGregor said. How do the Government imagine that they can leave MacGregor in charge of matters? Perhaps they are thinking of edging him out. They should take charge now and put an end to the lie—I know that. I should not use the word in exactly those connotations—or to the gross attempt to mislead the country that there has been no intervention by the Minister or by the Prime Minister. There has been intervention by the Government all the time; in my opinion, there should have been.
Our charge against the Government is that they should have intervened before the strike started. If they had done so, and the Secretary of State for Employment had been doing his job, they could have prevented the strike. After it had started, and they could calculate the huge costs on which the House must vote tonight, they should have come to their senses and used their mediating powers to end the dispute. They alone have those mediating powers. The only person who has been to talk to both sides is my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). The Government should have been following the route that he has, and, if that had been done, we could have, if not avoided this strike, stopped it: after a few weeks. We could even have avoided it long ago.
I say to the Government as strongly as I can that, if their idea is that this strike will be fought to a finish, there will be a bitter and costly finish. It is already costly enough. Huge costs will have to be paid to the areas concerned, particularly as the communities will have to be rebuilt. There will be huge costs for our nation as a whole, and in


trying to repair the damage in those communities. Some of us urge and argue for what we have asked from the beginning. We have said it to Arthur Scargill and everybody else. There must be a fresh, new, attempt at a proper, honourable and negotiated settlement, with neither one side nor the other winning, but only the nation. It is of that that the Government should be thinking tonight.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I understand the Government's position. I know that they need and must have this measure. I know that the Government have made statements during the current dispute, and I know that there are bills to be paid. However, I shall take the luxury of looking at the measure from the point of view not of the Government but of an individual Back Bencher committed to the truth and to the interests of his constituents.
This is the last in a long line of extravagant measures. This progression has gone on for too long. The time must come when someone, even a humble Back Bencher such as myself, must stick his thumb in the dike. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned that an action, such as voting against this measure, could be misrepresented and misunderstood in the country. However, it is because I have faith in the courage of the work force and in the future of the industry that I seek to raise tonight, perhaps mistakenly, the flag of future financial sanity in the industry.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The tattered flag on the stricken field.

Mr. Marlow: The debate is about the amount of taxpayers' money that is to be spent not on covering all the needs of the coal industry but its losses.
We are—at least I hope we are—at the terminal stages of a rollicking, rip-roaring rake's progress. It started in earnest with the Coal Industry Act 1980, although it had started even before that. In 1980, we imposed a limit of £525 million on the grants payable for paying off the Coal Board losses, for providing cheap coal to power stations and for subsidising coal stocks and coking coal. In case that was not going to be enough, there were provisions for an order to increase that amount to £590 million. It will not be an overwhelming surprise that on 10 August 1981, that limit was duly raised. Sadly, that, was too modest. We had a new Act in 1982, which raised the limit for these purposes to £1,000 million, which again could, by order, be increased to £1,750 million. As is the way with these things, the House will not be surprised to know that on 10 August 1982 the limit was duly raised to £1,750 million.
The situation became difficult. After all, £1,750 million is quite a lot of money, and it is not easy to finesse such sums even late at night. Some people were beginning to smell a rat. A new strategy was required, so we had a brand new Coal Industry Act in 1983 which, instead of amending the overall limit, amended the individual limits within that overall limit — a whiff of parliamentary smoke and fog. In that way, the limit to pay off the annual loss alone, not for worthy causes such as cheap electricity or redundancy payments, was increased to £1,200 million, with the ability by order to increase it to £2,000 million. Surprise, surprise, tonight we have the order.
As Sherlock Holmes might have said, it is the case of the vanishing billions—the only true-life case of money being poured into holes in the ground. It is the syndrome of the bottomless pit. One of the reasons why I intend to vote against the measure is that I believe that this syndrome is the greatest single cause of the tragic dispute in our coalfields. It is why we have got where we have got. Anyone would go to sea for a luxury cruise on the otherwise doomed Titanic if he believed that there was an Almighty hand ready to bail it out every time that it hit an iceberg. No industry can prosper, develop or hold up its head if it is to be the permanent pensioner of the public purse. The mining industry is no exception.
How much money do the Government seek? The increase alone is £800 million. It is a massive sum compared with the small change over which blood and sweat were spilt in the Chamber last week during the debate on overseas aid. I invite the House to compare it with the £24 million by which we intend to restrict student grants this year—a factor of 33 for the massive amount of damage that that one measure will do. We are asked to approve the expenditure of £800 million almost on the nod late at night when the country is asleep and representatives of the press have gone home. It represents £15 a head for every man, woman and child in the country.
In the constituency which I am proud to represent I have 70,000 electors, perhaps 100,000 souls. If I am to walk through the Aye Lobby in favour of the measure, I am frisking my constituency of £1·5 million. I will not do it.
The total sum is even more dramatic. It is £2,000 million. That represents 2p off the rate of income tax, dearly beloved by my brethren on the Government Benches. It represents 40p off a gallon of petrol. Think of the smiles that that would bring to the faces of those in rural communities. I can also tell Opposition Members that it would almost double the existing housing programme. It is greater than the total Foreign Office budget, including aid, and how well that sum would have gone down last week. It is also more than three times our net contribution to the European Community. For those with a proper social conscience, with this amount of money we could increase child benefit by some 50 per cent. Think of the magic spells that we could weave with £2,000 million.
Who will pay this vast amount of money? I know that Opposition Members realise that it will not be the City bankers who expect to make a killing out of the sale of British Telecom. As always in such cases, it will be Mr. Average, the poor bloody infantryman of the taxpaying community. It will be people such as the footwear workers in Northamptonshire who, three or four years ago, lost their jobs as a result of the recession and international competition without massive redundancy pay. They have now found their way back into other work, although that work is not highly paid. It is their taxes that will be used to pay the bill. It will be people such as those from the Northampton welfare rights support unit who came to see me today to complain about changes in social security and about cuts in the heating allowance. Strangely and paradoxically, they were wearing "Coal not Dole" badges, supporting Arthur Scargill's strike. If they had this £2,000 million, they would have heating allowances beyond the dreams of avarice, sufficient warmth and heat to bask in tropical temperatures for the rest of their lifetime.
What about the coal industry, hooked as it now is on the insidious drug of perpetual, carefree, subvented overdraft? In February 1974 I had the honour to be the


candidate for Normanton, a mining constituency, during the miners' — not Arthur Scargill's—strike. Like my noble Friend Lord Stockton, I believe that the miners, who defeated the Kaiser's army and who are now poised to defeat Arthur Scargill's army, are among the finest and best of men.
I cannot begin to claim the understanding of many right hon. and hon. Members of the mining communities, but I have a loyalty, drawn from those days, to the miners and their cause. For them there has to be another way. I do not want to embarrass anybody by talking about privatisation, although that did not embarrass the workers of the National Freight Corporation and it does not seem to be embarrassing the workers of British Telecom who are jamming our pillar boxes with their applications for shares. But why not co-operativisation, with loans, with support and with eventual prospects of freedom?
This measure is not about money for jobs. It is probably destroying jobs in other areas from where the money is taken. It is not about money for investment or machinery. It is about money to cover losses. How debilitating and depressing. Surely we all believe that the mining industry is justly too proud to be for ever in the public financial sick room. Surely we owe it to that hard-working and courageous community to find a different solution. We are floating on a sea of coal. When the ghastly dispute is over, let us enrich rather than inpoverish ourselves. I believe—perhaps mistakenly—that by signalling that the long progression has been in the wrong direction, we can at last begin to embark on a different direction.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I shall confine my remarks to the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1984.
Welcome as the Minister's announcement this evening may he to those who were made redundant just before the strike commenced inasmuch as they will receive increased redundancy payments in lieu of unemployment benefit, it will be of no joy to some of my constituents. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, I too had a surgery last Saturday, when I met four of my constituents who will not be happy about this announcement in one particular respect. I refer to these gentlemen by name because I said that I would raise the matter this evening. They are deeply concerned because they are experienced mineworkers who have worked in the industry all their lives, but at the moment they are not employed by the NCB.
Mr. J. Milnes, Mr. P. O'Neil, Mr. H. Taylor and Mr. P. Williams are all employed by Amco. When the strike started on 9 March they reported for work, but were told that there was no work for them and that they would have to sign the unemployment register. They did that and continued to receive unemployment benefit until October, when someone at the Department of Employment decided that any result of the strike that benefited the NUM would benefit those men. That argument is based on the fact that the men are members of the NUM, but they are obliged to be members of the union because they work on NCB contracts. They are wound into and out of the pits by NUM colliery winding enginemen, they work alongside NUM members down the mines and, because of the closed shop

agreement in the industry, they are obliged to become associate members of the NUM. They are not on strike; they are locked out.
Those four men were employed by Amco during the 1972 and 1974 disputes and they received their full entitlement of unemployment benefit. Suddenly, some bright boy at the Department of Employment says, "These guys are going to benefit." I do not know how the hell he made that out. Excuse my language, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The four men are on social security and, because they are associate members of the NUM, they have to suffer the injutice of having £15, shortly to be £16, deducted from their social security payments.
When I was first approached about the problem I telephoned the Department of Employment office in Leeds to get the facts. I was told exactly what I have told the House—that because the four men were members of the NUM they stood to benefit. I asked how they would benefit and, to my amazement, the officer said, "If there is any increase in wages as a result of the dispute, these men will benefit.' I had to point out that it was a dispute, not about wages, but about jobs and keeping pits open, but the Department still insisted that the men, who were employed by an outside contractor and not by the NCB, would benefit and that their case had to go to an adjudication officer.
I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Employment during Question Time on Tuesday. On Friday I received a reply to my letter of 21 October. I find that hon. Members usually get a result if they prod Ministers at Question Time. The letter said:
When claims were first made by the sub-contract employees in Yorkshire they were referred to the independent Regional Adjudication Officer in Leeds for a decision … different Adjudication Officers will come to different decisions on what seem similar cases.
That is true, because I am told that five men employed by Cementation in south Wales were refused unemployment benefit and their appeals were upheld. Mr. Tony McCann, who lives in Chesterfield and was also employed by Cementation, was working in the Bentley colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). Mr. McCann was denied unemployed benefit and the adjudication officer upheld his appeal. The precedent is there, but the Yorkshire regional adjudication officer reached the conclusion
that such sub-contract employees should not be disqualified from receiving benefit.
Earlier today the Minister said that several judgments in favour and several against had been made and that there was no balance. The most telling part of the letter states that
the Leeds Adjudication Officer became aware that his decisions were at variance with those elsewhere (and he was advised accordingly by the Chief Adjudication Officer)".
That is remarkable, because he had to reconsider his first decision and decided, lo and behold, that employees do fall within the disqualification rules. What a cock-up. That is terrible language, and I apologise, but this is a load of sago pudding. It is all nonsense. You know what I am talking about, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is saying that any adjudication officer can make a decision which is out of step with that of other adjudication officers. What sort of ruling is that? The Department of Employment stopped the benefits, but cannot interfere to reinstate them.
We are talking about men who have worked in the industry all their lives. They are the most experienced


mineworkers that we have. They have experienced every ambit of the work. When they work for a private contract, a clause in each contract states that if a dispute occurs at the colliery at which they are working they will stop work and the contract will be withdrawn. That applies even to a local dispute. Those men should receive unemployment benefit. They will gain no joy from tonight's announcement, because they are being denied their right to unemployment benefit and their full rights under the social security legislation. They are associate members of the NUM and they should not forfeit the £15 which is being deducted from mineworkers.
In 1972 and 1974 these men received not only their full unemployment benefit but all the other benefits, including milk tokens. The Minister will say that the decision has nothing to do with him and that it is a matter for the Department of Employment. I hope that he will tell his colleagues in that Department to get moving and pay the men.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The argument about outside contractors has been taken to Wales and a commissioner has ruled that such workers should receive unemployment pay. As a general rule, that is accepted. Is it not strange that some people do not accept that ruling?

Mr. Woodall: That is right. I have a copy of the decision by the social security commissioner who ruled on the south Wales issue. The five men are named and the commissioner gives his ruling in favour of them. He rules that they should receive their benefit. At the end of his report—I suppose that a copy went to the Secretary of State—he stated that should be done
because the dispute related to pay as well as pit closures
—that was the case made by the social security benefits officer.
The commissioner continued:
However, in view of the conclusion to which I have come, these points are irrelevant and I do not find it necessary to deal with them in any detail.
There was a ruling by an adjudication officer and by a social security appeals tribunal. What is good enough for south Wales is good enough for Yorkshire. I ask the Minister to take this on board, refer it to the Department of Employment and tell it to get the matter sorted out.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I endorse entirely the words of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), who used rather more colourful language than my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in taking up his remarks on the Redundant Mineworkers Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) (Amendment) Order. I served under my hon. Friend the Minister when he was a Whip, and I know him to be a reasonable and persuasive gentleman. I am sure that he will use his talents to ensure that the just request of those currently adversely affected are met.
In his reasonable way, my hon. Friend gave way frequently during his opening remarks to allow hon. Members to intervene. That is one of our complaints about his Department. It gives way too often to financial claims that are put upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred to the frustration that is felt by some Conservative Members

at the continual demands put upon us to vote hundreds of millions of pounds to support the coal industry. I go further than that. I feel a sense of outrage rather than frustration at being asked once again—this is the third, fourth or even fifth occasion since I came to this place—to vote more subsidies to the coal industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, over the past few weeks there has been a painful search for small economies in an attempt to constrain the uncontrollable engine of public expenditure. That search led us to overseas aid, students' grants and even the £1 note. I think that the note's replacement by a coin is designed to save £3 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak talked about the battles that we had last year on housing benefit.
All these painful battles will be rendered entirely negative by the sums that will be poured away this evening as on other occasions. The old proverb tells us that if we look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. We seem to spend a great deal of time searching for pennies, but when it comes to spending pounds it is all too easy for the savings to disappear into the great maw of public expenditure.
Since the general election, we have discussed the coal industry's affairs on numerous occasions. We have put the Coal Industry Act on the statute book, which authorises borrowing to the tune of £6,000 million on the part of the NCB. There was a Supplementary Estimate of £290 million in March. There was another Supplementary Estimate of £393 million in July. The Minister has warned us that if the order is passed this evening he will be coming before us again for another £600 million in the winter Estimates. Where will it all end?
Since 1979–80, when the Government took office, we have paid out in deficit grant to the Coal Board £2,747 million. Beyond that, we have added £3,850 million by way of investment in the industry. I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who went through the catalogue of changes in investment area by area in the NCB. Nearly £4,000 million has been invested in the industry in the past five years. The return on that investment, far from being positive, does not even break even. It is minus 5·9 per cent. We are having to pay for the privilege of investing in the coal industry.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to the reasons for the deficit and to the breakdown of the figures? It may be difficult to break down the figures. As one employed for 39 years in the industry, my experience is that a substantial part of the deficit arises from bad management decisions, not bad work by employees or miners. In 1983 a mine closed in the area in which I live and where I worked. A bad management decision in 1966 caused that closure. About 1,500 employees would otherwise now work in that mine. A fire in the mine was caused by bad management decisions. The mine was flooded and was closed in 1983. A large part of the responsibility for the deficit in the mining industry rests on the shoulders of management, not miners.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not seeking to apportion blame between the miners' leaders and the NUM for the losses that have been incurred. As my father was a manager employed by the NCB for 30 years, I am unlikely to agree with the hon. Gentleman's generalised statement. No one


is infallible. Mistakes will be made by management, and I do not deny that. The ultimate causes of the losses experienced for many years are the geological difficulties faced in many deep mines which make them unpleasant places in which to work and expensive places from which to extract coal. I in no way say that it is the miners fault that the NCB is in its present plight. I endorse the good things that have been said about the miners as a breed of men. When there are pits that are inherently uneconomic because of the high cost of extracting coal, one is bound to produce figures such as those I have cited.
The total amount paid out to the NCB during the past five years is £6·5 billion. We are talking about enormous sums of money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out that the subsidy presently enjoyed by the industry amounts to £131 per man per week. That is £5,381 per man per annum which is accounted for by the operating deficits. On top of that, there is another £2,917 per man per annum for investment. The total amount of subsidy per man employed by the NCB is £8,298 per annum. That is an average. In areas that are suffering losses, the average subsidy is many times that figure. In areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) the profitable pits are disguising the amount of subsidy enjoyed by those who are working in the uneconomic pits. It must make sense in the interests of the coal miners, the NCB and the economy generally to close uneconomic pits and to open up new capacity. That is being done, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman challenging my statement from the Dispatch Box that, since the Conservative party took office in 1979, not one new pit has been sunk?

Mr. Hamilton: I am not challenging that. We know that investment has gone on apace in the pits that are already in existence. Selby and Asfordby are new pits even though they may not have been sunk during the period of office of the Conservative party. That fact should not disguise the amount of money spent on equipping them and ensuring that they have the best machinery and so on to make them profitable in the years to come. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit I repeat that total amount of investment incurred during the past five years amounts to nearly £4 billion. That is a significant amount of taxpayers money. When we talk about the enormous sums of money that we have constantly to vote to keep these uneconomic pits going, we should see it in the context in which the Labour Government placed the NCB when it was created in 1946.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken hold of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 in the short period during which he has held his post. He will find that under section 1(4) an obligation was placed on the board, taking one year with another, to break even.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has already said, and it is worth repeating, that the losses being incurred this year by the NCB — taking the investment in the industry into account — would be sufficient to be able to reduce income tax by 2p in the pound, to take 2 per cent. off VAT or 28p off a gallon of petrol or add £2·70 a week to the old-age pension.
Those who live in areas where uneconomic pits are found are justifiably apprehensive that if the pit closes there will be considerable unemployment. I understand that. I represent a constituency which, although it does not have coal mines, has many energy-intensive industries, and as 83 per cent. of the country's electricity is produced from coal, the cost of coal vitally affects employment in those industries which are dependent upon it.
Sir Walter Marshall, the chairman of the CEGB, has said that if he were free to buy coal in the cheapest markets he could cut his costs by 25 per cent. and reduce the price of electricity to the domestic and industrial consumer by 10 to 15 per cent.
The chemical industry in mid-Cheshire is highly energy intensive. It has been spending money as a result of the Government's boiler conversion scheme and re-equipping with coal-fired rather than oil-fired boilers, and it will face enormous costs if we do not introduce some sanity into the coal board's accounts.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give way again. On the Press Association tape this evening I saw that British Steel says that at Ravenscraig it is costing £10 per tonne more to produce steel as a result of the strike, thus placing the jobs of people in steel-making areas at risk as well.
It is a cost that is faced not just by those who are immediately dependent upon the cost of coal but one that is being faced by the whole country. Professor Patrick Minford, professor of economics at the university of Liverpool, has calculated—I realise that this will be unpleasant for Opposition Members to hear, but I am sure that it will be good for their souls to listen—that for every £100 million of job-creation expenditure in coal mining, we destroy 900 jobs because of the costs which are distributed throughout the rest of the economy and which make us less competitive, less efficient and less able to sell our goods in the world markets upon which the majority of our people depend for employment.
The unreality which pervades these debates, and which has pervaded the dispute, is due entirely to the belief of those who remain on strike that, whatever the cost, the taxpayer will pick up the bill; and that, however long the strike and whatever the costs, no jobs will be lost in the industry. It is time for the Government to say to those who remain on strike that there will come a time when we shall be unable to guarantee jobs for all those who wish to stay in the industry. The problem from which we ran away in 1972, from which the country ran away in 1974, and from which the present Government ran away in 1982, faces us again tonight and will face us yet again before the end of this year. It will no doubt face us again next year unless we bite the bullet, for there will come a time when the taxpayers' patience will be exhausted. Indeed, I believe that that time has already come.

Mr. James Wallace: I shall not immediately follow the speech of the hon. Member for Talton (Mr. Hamilton) but will return to it.
I refer, first, to the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) (Amendment) Order. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the anomalies which will still exist, notwithstanding the terms of that order. I agree with the


hon. Member that there is still something that can be done in terms of unemployment benefit to relieve even more the burdens faced by many people who have sought redundancy.
I should like some clarification from the Minister about the status of payments under the order. I understand its purpose to be to enable the weekly benefits under the scheme to be made payable, breaking the link with unemployment benefit, where a trade dispute is in operation. I understand that in other respects the scheme is still related to the uplift part of the benefit and to other regulations akin to unemployment benefit.
My attention was drawn to the case of a miner who visited a son who was ill in the armed forces in Germany, and who lost his entitlement to the uplift benefit because he was not able to seek work. Although there are no age limits, I understand that the scheme is still largely taken up by people who would otherwise be seeking early retirement. When the Government have given people every encouragement to give up their work, I question whether it is wise to put them into competition for jobs with 4 million people who are already desperately searching for employment.
Is there any reason why the redundancy payments scheme should not also apply to those who are engaged in opencast mining? My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is particularly concerned about this matter. I understand that in the European Community regulations concerning similar schemes no distinction is made between those who work in deep coal mining and those who are engaged in opencast mining. Have the Government any reason for making a distinction? The problem could become increasingly more acute as the redundancies arise in opencast mines which are nearing exhaustion.
With regard to the points made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), my right hon. and hon. Friends, from the early stages of the dispute, have keenly pushed the argument for an enterprise company, and we are still not satisfied that the Government have provided sufficient funding for it. We welcome the small amount that has been done, but we think that £5 million is wholly inadequate to meet the challenge that would face such an enterprise company if it were to do its task well. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what proposals the Government have to increase the sums spent.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tatton and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about deficit grants. Although I understand the theory that makes them question the spending of public money, they never seem to ask themselves what sort of energy policy they want. They always talk in terms of money being spent. It is obvious that the demand for coal has dropped significantly in recent years, in many respects because of the Government's economic policies. What would happen to the coal industry if the sums were to be cut off, as the hon. Members suggest? My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that there is a long-term future for the coal industry in supplying the country's energy needs. One is entitled to ask those who criticise the amount that is being put into the coal industry what future they would see for it if they withdrew those sums so harshly by voting against the orders.
Those people ask whether all that money is going into a bottomless pit and whether it goes down a hole. If one examines the accounts of the NCB, one finds that there is often much talk of uneconomic pits and that the deficit grant in some years has matched the amount of interest repayments made by the NCB to the Department of Energy. In 1983 the deficit grant amounted to £374 million, but the interest paid back to the Secretary of State for Energy was £364 million. Admittedly last year the gap was bigger, but, none the less, of the £875 million of deficit grant, over half could be said to have been taken back by the Department —£467 million in interest payments.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has had a good opportunity to speak, and others wish to take part in the debate.
While the Government continue this conjuring trick, one might well ask whether the time has come to take a positive initiative to try to restructure the NCB's finances and to write off, or significantly write off, a large part of that debt. That matter was raised in another place in February this year when the Earl of Avon, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, said that the board enjoyed what amounted to a year-by-year capital reconstruction because of the deficit grants. He said that the Government would consider writing off the debt when the industry became more viable. My appeal is that the Government should consider something like that now. They have been willing to put together a package to restructure other nationalised industries, such as British Airways, when they want to present the industry in a more acceptable form for privatisation. Why do they not take such an initiative to break the stalemate in the dispute?
All that we see are the Government pinning their hopes on a drift back to work. That is the only method that they have to end the strike. I am not denying those who have gone back to work, but I do not think that that can be a complete answer. At the end of the day there will still be a hard core—it may be a substantial hard core—who have not gone back to work. One believes that the dispute can be solved only by a negotiated settlement. It cannot be solved by hoping that the drift back to work will carry on until the strikers are down to a small number.
At Question Time today, and in this debate, Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), have called for the Coal Board to go back to the negotiating table. One might well ask them what they wish the Coal Board further to concede. That is a fair question. Perhaps they will enlighten us on that matter.
My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the figures in the "Plan for Coal" are no longer relevant to the present circumstances. The time has come for its renegotiation. "Plan for Coal" was a tripartite agreement. It involves the Government, and they cannot abdicate that responsibility. They could show their long-term confidence in the mining industry and could go a long way towards taking much of the heat and bitterness out of the dispute if there were a fresh start, with a proper reconstruction of the board's finances, rather than the Minister coming back to the House time and again to put more money into the industry. We ask the Minister to reply to that and to give the Government's view of what they would do towards achieving a proper reconstruction of the board's finances.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I intend to keep my remarks brief as time is running short and to confine them to the Coal Industry (Limit on Deficit Grants) Order.
The circumstances of the tabling of the order are quite extraordinary. Here we are, at nearly 1 am, debating the sum of £800 million. Over the past three months or so, the Government have made repeated attempts to contain the public sector borrowing requirement. That has been one of their prime preoccupations. Expenditure estimates have been examined with a toothcomb down to the smallest items. Department by Department. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been bargaining with Cabinet Ministers over £1 million here and £5 million there. The whole exercise was concerned to save only £300 million, in an attempt of keep Government expenditure next year within the total of £136 billion.
After all that, what happened? There was what is called the star chamber procedure, with the Deputy Leader chairing a Cabinet Committee which went through all the estimates once again, seeking to pare down the excess over the original target to the smallest possible amount. What was the outcome? There have been cuts in the BBC's overseas services and in the British Council. The cuts may have amounted to only £1 million or £5 million, but they have been significant as a proportion of the expenditure on those items. There have been cuts in our diplomatic representation abroad, with the closure of 10 consulates. Parental contributions to students' fees have been increased.
However, we are asked to agree to the spending of £800 million. On what is it to be spent? My hon. Friend the Minister says that the money is needed to support the working miners. That is partially true. But what about the two-thirds who are not working? The money is to support them, too.
The strike has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money already in policing, social security payments and loss of production. Some of my hon. Friends may think that that money has been well spent. But what has caused so many miners to return to work in the past few weeks? After six months of negotiating, the NCB has made it clear that there is nothing further to negotiate. Everything that can be offered has already been offered. In the face of that firmness, the miners recognise that it is no good waiting for something else to come along; this is the end of the road. They can take the offer or condemn their industry to decay. In consequence of that firmness, miners have been returning to work day after day. Today, 975 returned to work. The trend will continue.
What are we doing about the money? Are we to continue to give miners the illusion that a tap can be turned on, from which endlessly, more and more money will flow? We must not do that. That would be unfair to all our constituents who have had to face cuts in many other spheres—many more that I have mentioned. It is time for the Government to make it clear that the taxpayer does not have a bottomless purse, that there is no endless flow, and that £800 million cannot be voted through on the nod at I o'clock in the morning. It is time that the miners were told that they cannot expect endless subsidies from working people earning less than they earn—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, at an astronomical cost per miner. If the money were spent in other spheres, it would go much

further and create jobs for more people than are employed in the mining industry. It is time that the tap was turned off. I cannot support the Government in their request for this large sum of money.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I thought for a minute that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) was about to go on to the cost to the Exchequer of the common agricultural policy or the Trident programme, although, as he said, the Government seem to be scraping round for other orders.
I am pleased that the order concerning the redundant mineworkers payments scheme is going through. It is a pity that it did not go through in the previous Session. Since the end of March, we have known about the anomaly by which hundreds of retired miners have not received weekly benefit from that scheme. The debate has centred around the cost of the strike. I refer the House to an article which appeared in The Times on 25 August 1983. The then chairman of the NCB, Sir Norman Siddall, warned the Government and that section of the British people who bought The Times about the consequences of appointing Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. He also issued a grave warning about the running of the British coal mining industry and said:
I would say that to return the industry to profitability within three years is a fairly massive task".
Indeed it is a massive task and it has not been helped by the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor. With the strike, that return to profitability will cost the money being granted in the Limit of Deficit Grants order and perhaps more in the winter Estimates. But a cost is attached to the appointment of Ian MacGregor and to the Government changing and ripping up "Flan for Coal". That is what is causing the dispute in the British coal mining industry. I refer Conservative Members to the debate of 22 November 1983 on the Coal Industry Bill. It was said that:
the National Coal Board should aim to maximise its long-term profitability by securing those sales which are profitable on a continuing basis, its competition with other fuels. It should plan its marketing, production and capital investment accordingly and bring productive capacity into line with its continuing share of the market."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 22 November 1983; c. 38.]
That statement was made by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who is now the Minister of State for police. His statement effectively ripped up "Plan for Coal" which had been agreed by the Government, unions and the NCB in 1974. That plan enabled the NCB, for the first time, to plan investment and production. The appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor in 1983 put an entirely different complexion on the matter.
It is important for people to realise why Mr. MacGregor was brought into the coal industry and who is responsible for the dispute. On Thursday 16 February, just a few weeks before Mr. MacGregor caused the strike on 6 March, the Financial Times wrote:
The National Coal Board is set to present its plan for the future of the coal industry to the Government without union agreement. This would mark a break with the past decade, when plans have been agreed between government, board and unions.
Indeed, it is a break with the past decade. It was a ripping up of "Plan for Coal" as had been said by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy in 1983. Mr. MacGregor continued:
It has proved impossible to get any basis for agreement. I can't wait for the union. I work for the Government not the unions.


That was what he said in February, just prior to the strike. No one should be surprised that it has developed in the way it has, nor should anyone be surprised that Ian MacGregor became an expensive transferee to the coal industry to do exactly what he did with steel—to instigate a massive run down in jobs and coal production based on what could then be sold in the market.
The Government have not convinced me, or anyone else in the NCB, that in the last five years they have looked for further markets in which to sell British coal. They talk about overproduction. Only last year the House debated the reissuing of conversion grants, yet up to December the Government withheld the decision to continue for another 12 months grants payable to industrialists who transferred to coal burn for industrial boilers.
Never have the Government looked for an expansion of markets for the British coal industry, but that does not surprise me in view of what I have read. I have in my hand an article published in The Economist in 1978 by the Conservative party's policy group of the nationalised industries. It was drafted by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now Secretary of State for Transport. That article mirrored exactly what has gone on in the coal mining industry in the last 12 months. It states:
Behind the scenes, they would like a five-part strategy for countering this threat".
It speaks of a threat to Government from a strike in certain industries. It continued:
Return on capital figures should be rigged so that an above-average wage claim can be paid to the 'vulnerable' industries".
One of these was obviously the coal industry, because that is exactly what has happened. Although last year's wage increase has still not been settled by the Coal Board, it was 5·2 per cent., just a little more than what was offered to those in the public sector such as nurses. The article added:
The eventual battle should be on ground chosen by the Tories".
We have already been told that the Government were not hard enough in 1982 when they supposedly did a U-turn. Of course not, because they were waiting for the ground to be right before taking on the miners. That is exactly what was written by the Conservative party's policy group on nationalised industries in 1978.
The article went on:
Every precaution should be taken against a challenge in electricity or gas. Anyway, redundancies in those industries are unlikely to be required. The group believes that the most likely battleground will be the coal industry. They would like a Thatcher government to: (a) build up maximum coal stocks, particularly at the power stations; (b) make contingency plans for the import of coal; (c) encourage the recruitment of non-union lorry drivers by haulage companies to help move coal where necessary; (d) introduce dual coal/oil firing in all power stations as quickly as possible.
The group believes that the greatest deterrent to any strike would be 'to cut off the money supply to the strikers, and make the union finance them' …
There should be a large, mobile squad of police equipped and prepared to uphold the law against violent picketing. 'Good non-union drivers' should be recruited to cross picket lines with police protection.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is all very sensible.

Mr. Barron: It is strange that all this "sensible" action, which has now gone on for nine months, was written by the Conservative party's policy group in 1978. Yet they

have the gall to stand in this Chamber and say that the NUM is intransigent and has forced the strike upon the Coal Board. If Conservative Members believe that, I feel sorry for them, because it is far from the truth.
The Government are instructing the Coal Board to have nothing to do with trying to find a rational settlement of the strike. The Coal Board has not moved one iota since 6 March. If it has, I would like the Minister to tell me about it. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Energy told the House that the Government would have to qualify the terms for compulsory redundancy. That is not what they said two months ago.
The cost of the strike is between £3 billion and £4 billion. Conservative Members talk about public expenditure, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was money well spent. The cost of generating electricity by oil is about £35 million a week; the cost of bringing electricity from the Scottish grid is about £3 million a week. The Government will not say how much it costs to move coal by lorry rather than by rail. Millions of pounds are being spent, but that is easy to cost. What is not easy to cost is the threat to the mining communities. The policing in mining communities will affect all members of the public for years to come. It is not a cost in pounds, but a cost for which every hon. Member is responsible.
I do not accept the Government's claim that they want the dispute to be settled. The dispute is born out of Conservative party dogma. It was born in 1978 out of the policy document written by the Secretary of State for Transport. If they were honest with the British public and with themselves, they would tell the National Coal Board to sit round the table and come to a settlement that gives a guarantee to the communities that I and many other right hon. and hon. Members represent.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should realise that the dispute was not of the Government's making. It was born in Saltley in 1972, when the present leader of the National Union of Mineworkers made his first endeavour to bring down the Government, and succeeded. But he shall not be allowed to succeed this time. It is thanks to the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government that democracy in Britain will be upheld and the will of the people will be preserved against the intimidators and the men of violence.
I share the sentiments of my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about the order that will increase funding for the Coal Board. Many of my constituents are miners; others are not. The latter believe that they have lost their jobs and do not have all the benefits which are available to the mineworkers. Therefore, it is not true to say that, even in strong mining communities, all the people are sympathetic to the pouring of money into the mining industry. Those of my mining constituents who are still working deeply appreciate what the Government have done, not only in protecting their right to work, but in investing in the industry.
I wholeheartedly welcome the redundant mineworkers payments schemes order. I support the words of my hon. Friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in whose constituency Littleton colliery is situated. Some of the employees there are constituents of mine. In many respects, this is a long


overdue measure, as there has been an injustice. Many of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend, have received not a penny since they left the pit, apart from a lump sum payment which in some cases was very small. At least those men who are on strike have been receiving social security payments for their families. Those who have chosen to go on strike can also choose to go back to work as well. My constituents, and those who will be affected beneficially by the order, have in some cases received nothing, apart from the lump sum payment.
The NCB locally has a policy of releasing men who have given many years to the mines but are not in the best of health and often were not aware of the implications of what was on offer. Both parties agreed in good faith that those who were long serving and not in the best of health could be released and would be provided for.

Mr. Allan Rogers: What about compassion?

Mr. Howarth: Labour Members make a grave mistake when they assume that there is no compassion on the Conservative Benches. It is our compassion that enables us to take some of the tough decisions that may not be in the short-term political interest, but are in the interests of the country.
I shall quote from a letter from one of my constituents who has been affected. He writes to me:
I started work in the mining industry in 1946 and spent my last 23 years at Littleton Colliery. Due to manpower savings scheme at the colliery the personnel manager asked me if I wanted to be considered for redundancy. Due to my age nd service at the colliery, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to finish so that my wife and myself could spend the rest of our lives together. At my interview, I was informed by the personnel manager of the benefits that I would be entitled to receive. He gave me this information in all good faith and in all good faith I accepted it.
That is why I strongly welcome this order. Many men who have not been on strike had been made an offer by their local NCB management, and they accepted that offer in good faith and on the understanding that they would receive the money.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke for a long time, and refused to give way to me.
My constituent continues:
The DHSS are wrong in saying that I have been on strike. The fact is that our colliery voted to work, and I tried to get in to work each day but on 4 days they mentioned it was physcially impossible for me to get into work.
Many men, like this constituent, are being penalised for losing only a few shifts. Why is that? It is because they have been subjected to the worst intimidation in Britain since the war.

Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the attractive redundancy terms which are now available have only been made available since the strike started, and that it was at least six weeks into the strike before the present redundancy arrangements were offered? Is it not only as a result of the actions of the people who have gone out on strike that those who are scabbing and working will now have the benefits?

Mr. Howarth: As in most things, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the redundant mineworkers payments

scheme was in operation. Since the strike, a new scheme has been introduced for men under the age of 49. My constituent is under 55.
These men have been subjected to the worst intimidation on the picket line since the war. It is not reasonable for the House to expect of these men the heroism one would expect of the SAS. These are ordinary working men, and they are entitled to feel that they can go to their place of work free from interference. South Wales miners—probably from the constituency of the right hon. appeaser, the Member for Blaenau Gwent—have been to my constituency and thrown bags of urine at my constituents to intimidate them. That, in my view, is quite disgraceful. Some of them have intimidated. Others have not gone to work because the police have said that they cannot. Until the buses were organised and the NCB and the police managed to set up a system, these men were physically unable to go to work, despite their willingness to do so.
Another constituent of mine, a fellow named Walter Janson, to whom I have spoken today, has lost only one day. He has worked in the pit for 30 years. On the first day of the strike he made two attempts to get to work. He was unsuccessful and was forced to go home. The next day, being due to report for work at 7 o'clock in the morning, he made his way to work through the woods so that he would not be seen by the pickets from south Wales. He left home at 5 o'clock in the morning, and he continued to do that so that he could represent that he was going in to work. That shows a kind of determination which these tribunals ought to recognise.
This measure will help such men, who are not entitled to unemployment benefit. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security in his place. He has been very sympathetic to the cases that I have put to him, and I hope that his Department will consider this point with equal sympathy. It was part of the deal that these men were offered when they accepted voluntary redundancy.
Another category of men affected has not been mentioned so far. Two of my constituents, both of whom were employed in the pit and both of whom were good employees, had not voted to strike. They had sought to go to work. But, like so many others, they lost a few days because of intimidation. These two constituents, one a Mr. Pearson and the other whom I shall not name, left for other jobs. Both found that their new jobs fell through. One of them went to the United States, but the job fell through, so he came back. Neither of these two gentlemen can claim unemployment benefit. They have received nothing. Yet there is no way that they can benefit financially from the outcome of the strike. I hope that my hon. Friend will hear what I and others of my hon. Friends are saying and see whether anything can be done to assist them.
I welcome wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's endeavours. They are most timely. He has been in the Department but a few days, and we see this measure before us. I congratulate him on his alacrity. I prefer to have him as a Minister than as a Whip, though as a Whip he was equally charming to me. However, I share the grave misgivings already expressed by my hon. Friends about the bottomless pit of public expenditure. We have been through an awful time lately, with tiny amounts of public money to be saved. Great anxiety has been caused to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yet, at a stroke, late at night, we are about to put a lot of public money into the mining industry.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I rise to speak, sick at heart about the dispute. It is an unnecessary strike, brought about in an industry which has an enormous future and potential. I think that all hon. Members agree on that. The Under-Secretary of State and some of his hon. Friends have used the analogy of a private company. Although that analogy is not completely true, because we are talking about a public corporation, if we pursue it we, in essence, are representatives of the shareholders.
The Minister's hon. Friends are sore that he should ask for £2 billion in grants. They are right, but they should ask themselves why the Secretary of State can ask for £2 billion in grants when he has not been able to spend 10p in eight months on a telephone call to the NUM. On no occasion has he sought the views of the NUM.
This strike will not end easily. It will not end in a whimper. I can only speak knowing the posture of the people in my area. That is one reason why I am sick at heart. We in the comfort of the House of Commons do not know the enormous and severe privation which some families, such as those in my constituency, are suffering.
Do not howl at me the name "Arthur Scargill". Arthur Scargill did not bring the strike on. He did not harden the view of my constituents. I regret that we have not had a proper opportunity in the House to discuss the strike. In the interests of the nation the Government should provide not one, but perhaps several, days, and not at 1.30 in the morning, when we can ventilate the issues.
I want to refer to the Bogside closure in my area. I have accused Mr. MacGregor to his face and the board of industrial vandalism. If the NCB had been a private company, the management would have been sacked for what went on in that pit. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to. In my area the men have seen the board's behaviour. They have seen the board use tactics which I, with my background under the old shipbuilders, where we experienced hard and difficult management, could not believe when I read about them in the report. I could not believe that management would behave in such a way. The Minister knows that I have met his predecessor on this issue, and we have not been able to get to the root of the problem and its issues.
I have been on the picket lines and have told the men from my constituency and those of other hon. Members that the people going through the picket lines are not worth getting arrested for. I realise that the only secure weapon that my folk have is their unity. The NCB has sacked men because of their behaviour on the picket lines. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is helpful, but I am capable of making my own points. I know whose side I am on.
I have told my constituents that they must remain united, because if they do not the NCB will pick off their colleagues. That is an essential ingredient in the NUM and in any other decent trade union, and Conservative Members had better realise that. As a responsible hon. Member, I will not say to my folk, "Crawl back and be disunited." The Government, in their stupidity, might desire that, but I am trying to raise the Government from their stupidity. On occasions the Secretary of State for Energy raises himself from the stupidity. In his excellent speech to the Young Conservatives last week the right hon. Gentleman quoted John F. Kennedy:

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
The right hon. Gentleman is not negotiating. He has a responsibility, representing the national interest, to negotiate.
Do not let the Secretary of State come back and ask for any more millions. Let him spend 10p on a telephone call and get people round the table. One of the magic things about the dispute is the way in which the women have stood behind and beside the men. If this nation has any sense, it will not humiliate and degrade such people.
I plead with sensible people inside and outside the House—the bishops, the Church of Scotland and others—to lean on the Government and to say, "This is no way to run a modern industrial nation." The damage to the nation is great in financial terms, but the damage to the self-respect of communities also has to be considered. That is a vital ingredient in enhancing industrial relations and the prestige of communities. Ministers should not be too proud to do what I have suggested.

Mr. David Hunt: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. David Hunt.

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have serious problems in their constituencies. Is it reasonable that the Front Benches should take up one hour and 20 minutes of the three hours allowed for this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had two debates on the coal industry today and there has been a geographical imbalance in the selection of speakers. One coalfield in particular—the Warwickshire area — has not been represented. Can you give an assurance that there will be a better geographical distribution of speakers in future debates, so that the imbalance is put right?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not called to speak but a number of other hon. Members were also not called. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get a quart into a pint pot.

Mr. David Hunt: We have had a wide-ranging debate with contributions from hon. Members in all parts of the House who obviously care very deeply about our great coal industry. It is not just because this is the first debate that I have been privileged to wind up that I say that I found all the contributions to be of a high standard.
I much appreciated the kind remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) at the start of his speech, and I will endeavour to carry on the tradition of my predecessors. I should tell the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that I endeavoured to be as brief as possible in opening the debate and I have only 11 minutes to answer a considerable number of points. I do not think that I shall have time to cover them all, but I shall write to any hon. Members who are missed out.
The hon. Members for Midlothian and for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) asked me about the implications of the redundant mineworkers payments scheme order for some


of their constituents. The hon. Member for Midlothian kindly said that he did not require an immediate response. I will carefully consider those cases and write to both hon. Members.
I was asked when the payments would be made. If approved, the amendment order on redundancy payments will come into operation on 7 December. Payments under the new rules will commence as quickly as possible. I have already been in touch with the agency office which administers the scheme on the Department's behalf. I have asked whether it can identify all the cases so that waiting for applications is not necessary and a direct response can be made to those who have suffered. I am assured that the agency office will move speedily and contact direct those entitled to back payments. The payments will be made before Christmas, if that is possible.
I was pressed to extend the scheme to unemployment benefit. There is no anomaly, because the rules apply to all who fall within them.
A serious accusation was made about investment. Most of the investment in Selby has been under the present Government. I have read speeches about Selby by the hon. Member for Midlothian who played a major role in the start of the project. I hope that he will acknowledge that most of the investment has come under the present Government. It is particularly unfortunate that the strike is damaging the investment programme by holding up the Selby project, for example, by cutting capital expenditure this year from about £800 million to under £500 million.
In January the Government gave approval for a major new mine at Asfordby. I do not want hon. Members to gain a wrong impression from what the hon. Member for Midlothian said. The investment level has been much higher under this Government and we have a record of which we can be proud.
The hon. Gentleman said that the NUM executive could not call a ballot at any time. I defer to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the rule book and I feel a slight sense of foreboding when I quote from it in his presence. The rule book states:
A national strike shall only be entered upon as a result of a ballot vote of the members taken in pursuance of a resolution of conference.
That did not happen at the start of the dispute, but, under the same rule No. 43, there is provision for a ballot vote to be taken
during the course of a dispute.
Rule No. 23 in the NUM rule book states:
A special conference may be called at any time by the national executive committee.
That committee could call a conference straight away, and hold another at any time. We say that it should call another conference to discuss whether a ballot should be held at this time.
The hon. Member said that to state that the NUM had not moved an inch was a travesty of the truth. But that goes against my recollection of the "Today" programme when I heard the president of the NUM say that he agreed that he had not "budged an inch" since 6 March. That is what we heard.
The hon. Member for Midlothian accused me of massaging the figures and said that I would regret that. I listened to the NUM president on BBC Radio 4 on 12 November when he said that about 80 per cent. of his members were on strike—that is, 140,000. On "The World This Weekend" yesterday I heard him say that without question or fear of hesitation or contradiction there

are 144,275 miners on strike. According to the president of the NUM, the number on strike has increased by over 4,000. When he quoted those figures on 12 November, there were 133,000 on strike. Yesterday, when he referred to over 144,000 being on strike, there were only 123,000. I think that everyone throughout the country realises that there has been a significant return to work over the past two weeks except, apparently, the president of the NUM.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister still support the Secretary of State for Energy, who said in the House on 2 July that more than 60,000 miners were working? The same Secretary of State says that 20,000 miners, according to NCB figures, have gone back in the past three weeks. Yet today the NCB says that only just over 60,000 miners are working. The hon. Gentleman is talking about those who cannot add up and it seems that the Secretary of State for Energy cannot. Does he still support him?

Mr. Hunt: I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen for one moment. The figure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy quoted was for all employees in the coal industry.

Mr. Nellist: Miners.

Mr. Hunt: In the NCB and other activities. There are 222,000 employees in the NCB and in other activities of the board. Of those, over 98,000 are no longer on strike. Those are the correct figures. Out of the 189,000 members of the NUM, over 65,000 are no longer on strike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) was a strong and effective advocate on behalf of his constituents. He, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), has been the leader of the lobby which has fought for the concessions that I have introduced. His comments and those of others about unemployment benefit will be carefully considered by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and myself.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) made a plea for financial sanity. I have especial respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow because of his expertise in the business and commercial world. He had made it clear that he is not willing to support a bottomless pit. I remind my hon. Friend that these are difficult times. There is a strike and the Government are determined that the industry should be supported until it is able to return to viability. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no security in permanent dependence on subsidy from the taxpayer, and the Government are determined to end that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood gave us some important information on what was promised in advance to men taking early retirement. I shall consider that carefully.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made some good points about NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. and the comparison with steel. I benefited from that for my constituents who worked at Shotton. I recognise the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) to the effect that the perspective should be more ambitious, but let us take one step at a time. The hon. Gentleman told the House that one of his


constituents suffered loss through being abroad at the relevant time. However, the scheme was changed in April and it may be that that is no longer the position.
I do not have time to cover all the other matters that were raised in the debate, but I shall write to those involved. One feature that has greatly impressed me since I took over responsibility for our great coal industry is the sense of pride that is felt by everyone connected with it. I share that sense of pride and I am impatient to see the rebuilding process start as quickly as possible. First, the sad, damaging and unnecessary dispute must end. The one honourable way to proceed would be for the NUM to observe its great deomocratic tradition and put the offer to a ballot. That offer is described as having been the most generous ever made to miners since nationalisation. Those who say that the NCB has not conceded ignore the facts—a guaranteed job for every mine worker who wants to stay in the industry, no compulsory redundancies and the highest redundancy benefits in western Europe, a pay increase to keep miners well ahead of average industrial wages, continuing investment in the industry's future, and an undertaking to examine the 4 million tonnes reduction proposed in March and to consider the future of those five pits under the industry's review procedures to which is now added an enterprise scheme to help bring new jobs to mining communities. That is a very generous offer.

It being three hours after the first motion had been entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 November], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions relating to the coal industry.

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 2.

Division No. 20]
[1.35 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Ashby, David
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, J.


Budgen, Nick
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Hooson, Tom


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Durant, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Freeman, Roger
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Gale, Roger
Lawler, Geoffrey


Galley, Roy
Lester, Jim


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lightbown, David


Gow, Ian
Lilley, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lord, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Macfarlane, Neil


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
MacGregor, John





Maclean, David John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wallace, James


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Raymond


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Spencer, Derek





NOES


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mr. Tony Marlow and



Mr. Eric Cockeram.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Limit on Deficit Grants) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY

Resolved,
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CROWN AGENTS FOR OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Crown Agents Commencing Capital Debt Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sewage Treatment Sites

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Roy Galley: The debate results from some serious problems of nuisance from odours in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). We are both deeply concerned about the continuation, and in some aspects exacerbation, of these difficult local problems. However, these local difficulties have considerable significance and impinge upon national policy.
The problems relate to the Halifax sewage works, which are a complex of sites at Salterhebble, North Dean and Copley. For many years local residents have complained about the emission of foul odours from those sewage treatment works. All such sites inevitably present problems of smell for local residents, and with modern planning controls there would perhaps normally be fewer houses in the vicinity of sewage sites, although the experience of some hon. Members may suggest that that may be an optimistic view of the situation and that the planning controls may, indeed, be inadequate. Nevertheless, the houses in the area exist and the smell persists. It is very difficult to measure smell, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that it is regular and foul in varying degrees in this area of Halifax and of the Calder Valley constituency.
Initially, the odours in the Copley area were attributed to the manufacture of two humus-based products which were produced after a drying process. They were, first, Organifax, and then a slightly different product, Yorkshire Bounty.
In the mid-1970s a series of measures were taken to mask the odours, such as spraying scented chemicals in the vicinity, but those steps did not overcome the smell. In the late 1970s the production of this humus was discontinued because it was not a commercial success. Yorkshire water authority officials at the time indicated that this would overcome the worst of the odour emission, but it has proved not to be the case.
The latest suggestion is that the odours may stem from the need to treat effluents which come from several food and drink manufacturing plants in the Halifax area. It is maintained that such effluents can upset the digestion process at the sewage treatment works. However, there are many parts of the country where such effluents exist and foul odour emission does not present a problem. I understand that intermediate treatment stations can be installed, and that has been done successfully at Tadcaster, where there are three major breweries. That plant includes an odour control plant, and the problem of odour nuisance in Tadcaster has been completely eradicated. Alternatively, at Burton-on-Trent, sewage is treated by an anaerobic digestion process which, apparently, does not produce problems of smell or of slurry disposal.
Businesses pay for admitting trade effluent to sewers, and that payment is made on a sliding scale according to the strength of the effluent. It is therefore in the interests of the businesses concerned to reduce effluent strength, and indeed one such local firm, a famous brewery, has recently spent over £250,000 in an attempt to reduce effluent strengths and thus reduce its annual effluent charges. The water authority takes regular samples of

effluent strength, and that brewery has shown a 35 per cent. reduction in solid content over a 12-month period. There has also been a reduction in the amount of oxygen present, which in turn makes a more balanced effluent.
Major steps have been taken by firms in the constituency to reduce the strength of odour. Nevertheless, the smell persists in the vicinity of Copley and North Dean. There is no firm evidence presented by the Yorkshire water authority that the problem results from brewery and food manufacturing waste.
In addition to that problem, which has persisted for many years in the Copley area, we also have local problems of sludge dumping and processing. The process at the sewage treatment sites in Halifax results in a pressed cake which requires disposal. It can be spread directly on farmland, but in turn it produces serious odour problems, especially when it is near residential development.
It was therefore decided by the Yorkshire water authority to compost the material centrally before spreading. The current method which it employs to deal with sewage disposal is by mechanical pressing, lime is then added, and the cake is composted after transfer to another site. Supposedly, that process reduces the smell, but there continues to be a considerable foul odour, particularly at premises near where the sewage is processed at Lowfields in Elland, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley. That is a relatively new problem, in addition to the problems that we have had for many years in the Copley area. That process began in the summer of 1983, and it takes place within a quarter of a mile of several residences.
Given the will by all concerned, these problems can surely be solved. In many respects the Yorkshire water authority is doing a good job for people in Calderdale at present. We have long-standing problems of water quality, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder valley and others have campaigned over several years. The authority, to give it credit, is making substantial progress in improving water quality by investment in new plant in Halifax and relining a large number of mains.
While the latest spate of problems has existed at Lowfields for the last 18 months, the authority has sought from time to time to ameliorate the problem. This summer there was a serious infestation of flies at Lowfields. The authority acted promptly with the use of pesticides, and the problem was resolved. It has also installed new capital equipment to ensure the adequate mixing of lime with the pressed cake, but that has not dealt with the smell with which the people of Lowfields have to cope.
Despite the number of small measures that I have outlined, both at Copley and Lowfields, the water authority has not been fully successful. It must do better, because there is an indisputable and long-standing nuisance from foul odours in those areas.
My hon. Friend the Minister is the expert in these matters. It would not be appropriate for a layman such as myself to offer solutions. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain his policy on odour reduction and the processing of pressed cake. Investment in the form of intermediate treatment plants might solve the odour emission from the sewage treatment works near Copley and North Dean. Tankering to remote agricultural areas might solve the sludge disposal aspect.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Hear, hear.

Mr. Galley: The installation of a digestion process where the pressed cake would be left in tanks to digest further might be preferable to the present activated sludge process operated by the Yorkshire water authority. I understand that the water authority considered such a scheme, which would have required some further capital investment, but that it has recently, for some inexplicable reason, deleted the scheme from its capital programme. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley have suffered the problem for far too long.

Mr. Thompson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Galley: It is not only a matter of personal suffering. We are seeking to promote our area as being suitable for further business investment. What encouragement is it to potential investors when, as they enter Calderdale from the M62, they are hit by noxious odours from our local sewage treatment sites?
I know that my hon. Friend cannot direct the Yorkshire water authority to take any particular action. Nevertheless, he should take note of the suffering of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley and give us some guidance in resolving the problem. Furthermore, the people of Halifax and Elland should be able to look to the water authority to take much more positive action to deal with the noxious odours once and for all.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on raising a matter which is clearly of importance to his constituents in Halifax. It is, of course, of equal concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who has also raised the matter in the past. Because of his current role, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has to maintain a semi-Trappist silence on some issues, but the House will have heard his vigorous sedentary interventions this evening.
Both my hon. Friends have a considerable problem in helping their constituents to try to handle the misery which undoubtedly affects many people living in that part of the country.
I have looked into the history of the affair, and I hope that it will help my hon. Friend if I put the present problem into perspective.
The sewage treatment works at Halifax are on three sites — Copley, North Dean and Stainland road. The plant was being reconstructed and extended by the Halifax county borough council in 1974, when the Yorkshire water authority was formed and took over the works. Most of the installation has performed satisfactorily since it was commissioned, but there have been serious operational problems. Nobody should underestimate that. The intention was that the sewage sludge should be heat-dried and sold as fertiliser. But this process proved too expensive to run. There have also been problems in controlling odour from the original heat treatment unit.
Accordingly, in 1979 and 1980, the water authority shut down the heat conditioning unit and the final drying plant. This left it with a problem of disposing of the sewage sludge.
The geography of the area makes it impracticable to dispose of liquid sludge on farmland and therefore the use

of anaerobic digestion to stabilise the sludge at Halifax — which produces an inoffensive liquid fertiliser —would not be economic. Early in 1982 experiments were begun to determine whether the sludge could be effectively stabilised by the addition of lime, a process which is in successful use elsewhere. Although the Halifax sludge is particularly difficult to stabilise in this way — mainly because of the brewery and confectionery wastes from which it is derived—initial results proved promising.
Full-scale use of lime mixing was introduced in the spring of 1983, after some delay caused by the strike of manual workers, and the treated sludge cake was transported to the Lowfields site for temporary storage. This has been a matter of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley which he has pursued with the local authority and my Department. This temporary storage is essential for several reasons. First, there is no room on the site of the sludge pressing plant and, secondly, land spreading operations have to be organised on a seasonal basis to suit farm management practice. In addition, it is recognised that for sludge to be disposed safely to grassland, it must be substantially free from pathogens. It has been found that if the limed Halifax sludge is composted by stacking in the open for several months, it is made pathogen-free and odour nuisance is further reduced.
The site at Lowfields has a long history of use for sewage disposal. It was formerly the sewage treatment works of the Elland urban district council and therefore has planning permission and is accepted for this type of use. This makes it relatively suitable as a composting area for sludge cake.
Operation of the new method of composting after lime treatment during the summer of 1983 was very ecouraging and complaints of odour nuisance where the treated cake was used on pasture land were much reduced in number. The problem was not eliminated, however, and in February this year a petition about the odours was received by the mayor of Calderdale. A subsequent visit of inspection to the Lowfields composting site by environmental health officers impressed them with its effectiveness in reducing odours.
While this method of treating the odour problem by lime dosing and composting has now been shown to be feasible. The authority has not yet completed the capital works necessary to ensure adequate mixing of the lime with the de-watered sludge. Meanwhile, the odour problem has persisted at Lowfields and, on occasion, at Copley. The hot dry weather this summer exacerbated the problem and also caused a plague of flies, which, however, was quickly tackled by the use of spray pesticides, but not before it caused much misery to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley.
In summary, complaints of foul odours from the three Halifax sewage treatment works go back for 10 years or more. The water authority attempted to mask the odours in the early days. With the abandonment, in 1979 and 1980, of the drying process, which enabled it to dispose of the sewage sludge as a fertiliser, it was left with problems of sludge disposal to which the technical solution — lime treatment — has emerged only quite recently. Even now, this process is open to improvement and is being improved through the capital works which the water authority is now undertaking.
Meanwhile, there have been odour problems, particularly at the Lowfields site where the limed sludge is stored to compost, and at Copley, particularly during the hot dry weather this summer when flies also gave grounds for complaint, though the authority attacked the flies successfully with pesticides. It is to be hoped that the technical measures which the authority has taken will soon be fully effective, and forestall the odour and the repetition next year of fly nuisance.
There has been a regular dialogue between the authority and the district council about the difficult operational problems of the Halifax works. Consultation began as early as the summer of 1975, during the reconstruction work, when there were complaints about noise and smell, resulting in a public open day at the site to demonstrate what was being done. After the commissioning of the new heat treatment plant in 1976 there were further discussions to try to resolve the smell problem and work was put in hand on the development of improvements.
However, by 1980 the environmental problems had still not been satisfactorily solved and the authority decided to cease what was by then an obviously uneconomic operation. Throughout these negotiations and discussions the district council has been fully appreciative of the real difficulties facing the authority and has acted in a practical spirit of constructive co-operation. It is clear to me, too, that the authority and its chairman have been sensitive to the representations made by the Calderdale district council, the public, and Members of Parliament and are making every effort to overcome the problems which have proved to he particularly intractable. My hon. Friend hinted that there is also a longer-term issue. The Calderdale district council has expressed interest in acquiring the site at Lowfields, which was formerly the sewage treatment works of the Elland urban district council, and which, after a period of disuse, is now used for the composting of sewage sludge transported there, after lime treatment and de-watering at the Halifax sewage works.
The Yorkshire water authority has been prepared to discuss the transfer of this site to the Calderdale district council, but it could relinquish it only if an alternative site was available for the operations now undertaken at Lowfields.
The authority hopes that the district council, as planning authority, can help. I need not emphasise the importance that any site used for sewage treatment an sludge composting operations should have the necessary

planning consent for that use. I know that the Yorkshire water authority is ready to discuss this matter further with the district council and others involved. But the problems that have arisen in this debate are essentially local, as my hon. Friend has hinted, and I hope that with continuing effort and good will they can be resolved between the local public bodies concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has very limited powers in this matter. In the remote possibility of an appeal arising under the Town and Country Planning Acts, he is in no position to play any constructive part in resolving these issues immediately.
Nevertheless, I hope that the efforts that are now being made, and the investment that is now being put in, will abate the nuisance, and that the public bodies concerned can reach agreement on any better pattern of land ownership and use that might be found.
My hon. Friend referred to the district council's invitation to the Secretary of State, in a letter of 1 November, to be represented at a meeting with the borough council and the local Member of Parliament. Unhappily, that letter was misdirected and went astray. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that as our legal advice is that we have no particular locus in an essentially local matter, we are advising the borough council that we have no part to play in resolving the issue and that it should continue to press it with the Yorkshire water authority direct.
I thank my hon. Friend far raising this important subject tonight. His constituents have every reason to be grateful to him for the efforts he is making on their behalf arid on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley.
I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the division of responsibilities in this area, and, while my Department will naturally do what it can to help the Yorkshire water authority, we understand that its locus and role are paramount. I am sure that both my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Calder Valley will continue to intercede with the authority on their constituents' behalf. I am certain that the resourcefulness which my hon. Friend has displayed tonight will ensure that copies of Hansard are sent to the Yorkshire water authority so that it can understand the depth of his feeling and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Two o'clock.